The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Conflicting Ministerial Replies

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Mr Speaker, I have a dilemma, and I would like you to rule on the matter. The Minister for Regional Development, Gregory Campbell, indicated in a statement and in a reply to me at Question Time that consultation had taken place between his Department and the Department of Agriculture on the ban on sheep grazing in the Mournes.
I have received from Ms Rodgers, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, a written reply saying that no such consultation has taken place. It is very clear indeed that had consultation taken place it would have been known that the men who have grazing on the Mournes would not be grazing animals from October until the spring. That would have been very clear if consultation had taken place, and that would have allowed the force majeure regulations to come into place for next year.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.
This is not a matter for me. However, the point of order does indicate an apparent contradiction between two ministerial replies, and I will certainly look at that. Some of the potential implications to which the Member refers are really matters for the Executive, particularly the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Other potential implications may involve the Assembly. I will certainly look at the matter that the Member has raised and will, if it is appropriate, rule in the Chamber. If not, I will write to the Member in that regard.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me how I, as a public representative, could represent those farmers properly if there were a misunderstanding or an attempt to mislead?

Mr Speaker: First of all, we need to clarify whether the apparent contradiction to which the Member refers is an actual contradiction. Of course, it is open to the Member to put questions to and, indeed, request to meet with either or both of the Ministers to take the matter further. That is a normal matter of representation. What I wish to address is whether there is an actual contradiction. If so, we will see how it can be dealt with.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you ascertain whether the Member gave notice to the Minister involved that he was going to raise this matter and accuse him of potentially misleading the House? I am sure you are aware of the requirement to do so before a Member is named in this way in the House.

Mr Speaker: I am not making an assumption that either Minister —

Mr Peter Robinson: I make an assumption that he did not.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not making an assumption that either Minister is being accused of misleading —

Mr Peter Robinson: Read Hansard.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is an apparent contradiction between what two Ministers have said. That is a different matter, and that is how I will be approaching the question.

Mr John Dallat: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the same issue, are you aware that a serious breach of normal democratic practice took place at the Agriculture Committee on Friday, when a vote to write to the Minister to establish what Mr ONeill has tried to established failed, and a second vote was ordered by the Chairperson? What is the correct procedure?

Mr Speaker: I am not clear that that is a point of order for the Chamber. I will certainly explore the question, but I am not clear that anything out of order has necessarily taken place.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: First Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA1/00) to amend the law relating to child support; to amend the law relating to occupational and personal pensions; to amend the law relating to social security benefits and social security administration; to amend Part III of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. As there is on the Order Paper a motion for accelerated passage, I have arranged for copies of the Bill to be available from the Printed Paper Office immediately. The motion will be moved tomorrow, immediately before the Adjournment debate. I trust that that will give Members a reasonable opportunity to judge whether the Bill should be given accelerated passage.

Street Trading Bill: First Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA2/00) to make provision for the regulation by district councils of street trading in their districts.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: First Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Family Law Bill: First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Ground Rents Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr Francie Molloy: That the period referred to in Standing Order 31(4) be extended by 54 calendar days to Monday 27 November 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99).
A Cheann Comhairle. The Ground Rents Bill has an impact on the conveyancing process and on the rights of rent payers and owners. It will allow owners to buy out residential property and, on the subject of annual ground rent, to enlarge their leasehold estate into a freehold title. The Bill aims to introduce a scheme of voluntary and compulsory redemption of ground rents on residential property. It is a complex and technical measure dealing with issues that have remained unresolved for decades.
The Committee Stage started on 27 June 2000 but was interrupted by the summer recess. Since then the Committee has taken evidence on the Bill, and a number of concerns have been raised about how it will operate if the Assembly approves it as it now stands. Therefore it is important that sufficient time be given for proper consideration, and the Committee believes that this will take several more weeks to complete.
I ask Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the period referred to in Standing Order 31(4) be extended by 54 calendar days to Monday 27 November 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99).

Assembly: Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Jim Wells be appointed to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. — [Mr Dodds]

Assembly: Finance and Personnel Committee

Resolved:
That MrNigelDodds and MrPeterRobinsonMP shall replace MrGardinerKane and MrOliverGibson on the Committee for Finance and Personnel. — [Mr Wells]

Assembly: Business Committee

Resolved:
That MrIanPaisleyJnr shall replace MrsIrisRobinson on the Business Committee.— [Mr Dodds]

Retail Outlets

Mr John Dallat: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls for credible independent impact assessments before planning approval is granted for major retail outlets and asks for a moratorium on such developments until such time as there is a policy in place which gives shoppers maximum choice but at the same time protects the legitimate rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade.
We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and I believe that it is worth preserving. I know everyone in the Assembly believes that as well. It is a country made up of a network of attractive small towns and villages, each with its own distinctive character and virtually all still boasting a convenience store. Most likely there will also be a post office, a butcher, a greengrocer, a florist, a newsagent, and perhaps some specialist shops. Northern Ireland’s retail landscape supports diversity and local enterprise. It reflects the country’s geography and rural infrastructure and the character of its economy and people. The rural agricultural economy of Northern Ireland, and the dispersed population pattern, is ideally suited to the smaller local business. The same can be said of the Republic.
It is therefore no accident that independent retailers hold a larger share of the retail food market, both North and South, than is the case in England. Surely that is worth preserving.
I accept that shoppers want out-of-town shopping schemes. It can be argued that they benefit the consumer in terms of convenience and price, and, in some instances, help to reduce congestion and parking problems in town centres. I do not have a problem with that, and this motion is in no way suggesting that the consumer should not have choice. On the contrary — and this is very important — this motion, if supported by the Assembly, will ensure that the consumer continues to have choice and is not held hostage by one or two large multinationals. It is critical to get that message across clearly and concisely.
Apart from the issues relating to the rural community, we must never allow a small number of multinationals to have total control of the retail market. In such circumstances the independent retail sector will be wiped out more quickly than many people realise.
Let us pause for a moment and examine what happened in Britain. In 1986 there were 432superstores. This number increased by 250% in the last 10years to 1,034. These huge out-of-town superstores develop and operate a whole variety of outlets around the "anchor" supermarket and the "DIY shed". The result is that one single massive retailer sucks the business out of a whole community and out of independent local outlets for a 30-mile radius or more. High streets are deserted, town centres are devastated and local communities are left without services.
At present 42% of villages in Britain are without a single shop. Who is most affected? The elderly and people without cars suffer the most. Similar experiences have occurred across Europe, but in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Greece — to name but some — action has been taken to address the problem.
In each country there are restrictions on the size of the new retail developments. There must also be independent assessments carried out to demonstrate that developments are needed and that they will not impact adversely on the infrastructure of communities. There is also a renewed focus on town centres, and this is very important. In the Republic, where planning laws were never as loose as they have been in Northern Ireland, the Government have moved to limit retail development to 3,000 square metres. These guidelines are in place, and at present there is a strong lobby to copper-fasten them into legislation. There is a strong case to be made for keeping shopping local so that we can maintain the traditional economic and social hearts of our urban areas, towns and villages.
I said at the start that we have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and here in the North we are slowly but surely rebuilding what was destroyed or neglected. Perhaps we have some distance to go before we are in the same category as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, but it is worth pointing out that these countries have planning restrictions which are much tighter than those here.
I understand that evidence will be given to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, which will identify what is necessary to improve planning regulations in relation to retail development. The Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, is on record as saying that the planning document ‘PPS5’ is to be reviewed shortly, while the Deputy First Minister has announced that a Planning Amendment Bill will be introduced to the Assembly during this session. Given the likely timescales involved for a major review of planning policy, and the drafting, consultation and introduction of new planning legislation, it is essential that the recommendation of ‘Strategy 2010’ is introduced as a matter of urgency. The potential for further ongoing damage while these reviews take place is immense.
‘Strategy 2010’ suggests that one of the main challenges facing the country’s food processing sector is the power of the multiples. It is argued that as the multiples increase their buying power they will be even more able to squeeze the profit margins of producers, and their strong franchise power may inhibit the opportunity for small suppliers to develop their own brands.
Similar evidence was gathered recently by the Agriculture Committee of this Assembly. That Committee in its report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ clearly identified the need to examine the planning policies in relation to large multinationals because of their immense power to monopolise and dictate prices. To date, three of the largest retail organisations control almost 50% of the entire retail market share. One of the largest stores in Ireland operated close to this building in August 1999 and is capable of supplying 2·5% of the market on its own, if it reaches its target. Where similar experiences took place in Britain, 50,000 retail businesses have disappeared. That includes grocers, butchers, bakers, fishmongers, greengrocers and florists. In 1987 the independents represented 16·1% of the market. Today in Britain they control less than 7%.
If this trend is mirrored in Northern Ireland there will be major casualties, and the damage done to the food retailing market will be irreversible. Over 1,000 family-owned and run businesses could close. In another eight or 10 years over 40% of our towns and villages could be without a store. The supply network — which generates many jobs — will be mortally wounded. The damage to the retail economics and to the general social fabric of Northern Ireland will be catastrophic.
I do not believe it is yet fully realised by the Government, or by the general public, that in such circumstances, where superstores put local operators out of business, the consumer faces a limited choice of where to shop. Higher prices will result because of the lack of competition in the market, and what started as a big shopping experience with big value for customers becomes a big profit opportunity for the developers. In essence, the customer becomes captive at a superstore, deprived of choice and competition and open to manipulation.
Finally, there is the job creation myth, and on this subject the public relations machines of the superstores constantly mislead the public into believing that new jobs are being created. Nothing could be further from the truth. From evidence gathered in Europe and Britain, we learn that jobs and services within a 15- to 20-mile radius of a new store are severely affected. For every superstore that opens, the average net loss in employment is in the order of 276 full-time equivalents — about 25% to 30%. Studies show that where new jobs are created, they are predominantly part-time and overwhelmingly female. These surveys, which are backed up by scientific research, must have important implications for planning proposals for further food superstore developments. There are major environmental issues relating to planning decisions for large superstores.
Superstores draw thousands of consumers using private transport from up to a 50-mile radius, thus causing congestion on all major national routes. There is also the issue of greenfield sites, as each development takes up to 15 to 20 acres of land. Add to this the dereliction of towns and villages and the withdrawal of services because they are no longer viable, and you have at least some of the reasons why there should be an independent impact assessment. There are, of course, other reasons.
Some would argue that the saturation point is approaching, as these stores have successfully picked off their smaller rivals. It is no accident that they are now moving into non-food retailing where the profit is about twice the gross profit on food. As diversification continues, the demand for floor space will increase. Given the present weakness of the planning system, the applications will be granted. The onslaught will continue. There is the potential for every shop in the retail sector to be under threat, the consumer left with no choice and the country left with towns and villages with no heart and soul.
In conclusion, it is accepted that change will come, but the price does not have to be as devastating. It is the Government’s job to manage change effectively. The recommendations of ‘Strategy 2010’ must be implemented immediately. The promise of a future review will amount to no more than closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We will have failed to learn from the worst practices of others, and our unique rural countryside will be destroyed unnecessarily. Our cities and towns will be left with blighted town centres, and the most vulnerable people in our society will be left without essential services. That is the reality facing us if action is not effected.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
I love my country as you do; we owe it to our people and to the future generations to ensure that proper planning regulations are in force now so that our countryside, towns and villages and our heritage are protected from the ravages of big business which is here today and, perhaps, gone tomorrow.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I studied closely the motion on the Order Paper in the hope that it would have some sense and bring about consensus in this debate, but I fail to see any logic or sense in it. It has been badly worded, explained and presented. My party and I will not be supporting this motion as it currently stands. It is one of the most hare-brained schemes I have every heard. It is hare-brained, ill-advised and ill-informed. If this House were to give it any credibility or any sort of fair wind to enable it to be put on the statute book, it would be hampering development in Northern Ireland for ever. We would be curtailing shopper choice for ever and doing Northern Ireland a great disservice.
I can only imagine that the Member has been ill-advised. His party would be ill-advised to support this motion. It would have a devastating effect across Northern Ireland. The motion is an attempt to interfere in the natural course of market forces, in consumer rights and in the law of supply and demand. If John Dallat had his way, this House would legislate for the sun shining and the rain falling. This motion goes beyond what the House should be contemplating.
The Member has made no attempt to explain to the House the impact this motion would have on employment in particular. It would have a devastating impact, and he should realise that. Neither has he explained to the House the cost both economically and in development terms, for Northern Ireland. Has he really considered what he is asking this House to approve?
There are four parts of the motion that I would like to speak on. The first is the independent impact assessments. If this motion were taken seriously by the House, self-appointed consultants would spring up to provide these so-called impact assessment studies. A cottage industry of self-appointed, do-gooding bureaucrats would have a major say in shaping the face of Northern Ireland. Development would not be a strategic, planned matter. It would rest upon an assessment of what is here and now, as opposed to what could be in the future. The supposed presumption to allow development, especially on brownfield sites and in town centres, would be thrown to the wind, and investment in Northern Ireland would virtually cease.

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Member agree that at the moment consultants are not paid unless they come up with an impact assessment that suits the developer? What does he think about that?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That forces the impact assessment to be inaccurate and incredible, and plays into the hands of certain lobbies. Impact assessments are already in legislation for certain developments. It is not as if Mr Dallat is proposing something that does not already take place. There is a criterion for impact assessment. From the way it was explained to the House, you would think that impact assessment does not take place, but there is already an impact assessment. [Interruption]
The Member had his chance, but he did not explain it very well. Let me try and explain it to him.
The motion calls for impact assessments to be a prerequisite for what the Member calls "major retail outlets". No thought has been given to the meaning or interpretation of what a major retail outlet is, and that of course is critical. The Member has not adequately explained what his statement means because he does not know what he is talking about.
Is a major retail outlet to be defined by the name of the retailer — J Sainsbury is a major retail outlet, but Moores of Coleraine is not — or is it physical size? Is a major retail outlet to be defined, not by who the retailer is, but by the physical size of the retail unit in comparison to others in the locality? Would that, in turn, mean that in different parts of Northern Ireland we would have different interpretations of unit size? For example, could Belfast, Lisburn and Londonderry expect to get away with developments over a certain size because of the size of their location, while towns such as Ballymoney, Strabane and Craigavon could not because of their size and population density?
Mr Dallat made reference to the way in which these assessments and moratoriums are carried out in the Irish Republic where the magic figure is 30,000 sq feet. Is he suggesting that 30,000 sq feet is, by definition, a major retail outlet and should be treated the same way as a development of 75,000 sq feet? If so, nine times out of 10 the developer will go for the larger development rather than the one at the bottom of the scale. Or is MrDallat suggesting that 30,000 square feet is major by definition? What would happen to developments which were just under this size? Could we expect a rash of applications for developments of 29,500 square feet, which would not have to face the same rigorous examination as those that are over 30,000 square feet? There are many people who would be able to get away that that, but we would be foolish to allow them to do so. MrDallat’s independent assessment and his criteria for major retail outlets do not quite add up.
The Member then went on to argue for what he called a moratorium on development. That should be examined very carefully. The word "moratorium" means prohibition, a suspension, a stopping order. A moratorium is not defined by a specific period and, for that reason, is usually proposed by people who have nothing to put in the place of what they are trying to stop. They just want to stop something from happening. If MrDallat had come to the House with a more creditable suggestion, it would have received closer attention. Rather he just wants to stop consumers and shoppers from having choice, and that contradicts what he claims he is aiming to achieve in the last sentence of this motion — the provision of maximum choice for shoppers. How he can say that he wants this while proposing a prohibition on the development of retail outlets is beyond me.
JohnDallat is crying out to the likes of JohnLewis Partnership saying "Don’t come to Belfast and invest in the next couple of years." He is saying to Homebase and B&Q in Coleraine "Shut up shop; don’t come and develop in Coleraine." He is saying to Tesco in Ballymoney "You are not getting your major extension; you are not coming to Ballymoney." He is saying to Debenhams "You are not moving outside Belfast so that other consumers across Northern Ireland can choose your products." He is also saying to existing retailers, such as Moores in Coleraine, that they are not going to be able to expand because there is to be a moratorium on them also.
This motion does not protect existing retailers in Northern Ireland. It prohibits them. The existing retailers are best at providing choice, providing something different that the big multiples cannot provide. This motion would curtail them just as much as it would curtail the big developers. Instead of saying "Business as usual" for Northern Ireland, MrDallat is telling shopkeepers across Northern Ireland to erect signs which will say "No business is the usual". That would be the effect of this motion. A stopping order would have a dramatic impact on development in Northern Ireland, and MrDallat should recognise that.
He then went on to argue for maximum choice, yet to suggest that this stopping order would in any way provide choice is sheer stupidity. Minimum choice for a successful business would be MrDallat’s contribution to choice for the shoppers whose champion he claims to be. He would not be giving them maximum choice — he would be giving them minimum choice. The legitimate rights of the indigenous retail trade can only be protected if sound business practice is in place. Sound business practice is in place, and the reason existing businesses have done so well is that they provide choice, quality goods and items which the larger retailers cannot provide.
This House would be ill-advised to support a motion which is phrased in such a poor and rudimentary fashion, a motion that does not say what it means or mean what it says. If the Member is opposed to out-of-town retail developments, why did he not say so rather than propose a motion which is confused and, by its very nature, confusing. This House would do itself and planning a great disservice if it gave any creditability to this motion, which I therefore oppose.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the spirit of the motion. I think that MrDallat does not, as MrPaisley said he did, want fair trading and customer choice to be denied. I think what he is saying is that he is concerned, as we all are, about the expansion of major retail trade outlets. Coming from north Down I have a very partial interest in this; I am very concerned about the impact that major retail outlets will have on my area. We have one at the moment — Tesco in Tillysburn — and if D5 is allowed to go through, we will have another even bigger one. This would effectively kill off Holywood, if not the rest of north Down.

Mr Peter Robinson: Tillysburn is not in north Down; it is in east Belfast.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the former Minister for his remark.
I would support the motion if it took a number of things into account. Rather than have a moratorium on developments as the motion seeks, we should have a look at two reports, one of which is the EDAW Report, which was sponsored by the Department for Social Development. One of its recommendations is that a review of policy on rural shop support and market-town development be undertaken as part of a wider study. A common moratorium and evaluation system would help to compare and contrast performance in individual Northern Ireland centres, and town centre management should be considered as an element of town-centre invigoration for Northern Ireland. It has been shown by Lisburn that if there is good partnership between town centre management and the retail outlets, there can be success and maximum choice for the customers.

Mr Derek Hussey: MrsBell is beginning to enter the realm of the advantages of critical mass. Does she not agree that when created by larger stores, critical mass can benefit local retailers if they use their entrepreneurial skills to tap into the numbers brought into an area via these large stores? Further to that, the rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade might be better met by a review of the rates system. Rates could be related to business profitability, rather than to the commercial properties. This already happens in other areas in the retail sector.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the last point, but we need to look at the relationship between existing indigenous retail trade outlets and major retail outlets. If it will affect them, they will have to look at what those effects will be before they can decide what to do.
The other report to which I referred was in ‘The Observer’ yesterday, and I was very concerned when I read it. Everyone has been looking at the effects of out-of-town retail outlets on the mainland. The report was commissioned by the Office of Fair Trading and includes quite a number of findings on what is happening with "the big five", as they are called on the mainland. It has come up with a number of recommendations which I urge the Government to examine before we go any further, and it is for this reason that I do not support a moratorium. We need to look closely at this issue.
It was shown clearly in this report that "the big five" put rock-bottom prices on basic, staple items like butter, and obviously people flock to that. Once they get a hold on an area, and people are coming in, the prices go up. This has been proven, and I would not like to think that that would happen here.
One of its recommendations — and I am very concerned that we look at this especially with regard to my area — is that a major retailer should not have another branch within a 15-mile radius.
In Holywood there is one small and one large Tesco supermarket. Tonight there is a public meeting in Holywood about the effect one is having on the other and the possible effect of D5. We have a large — [Interruption] Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak without being interrupted from the back. It does tend to put one off.

Mr Peter Robinson: There is no one behind the Member.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Robinson is certainly not behind me, and he is not in front of me, but I would like him to desist from making comments. I am sure that I will listen to Peter Robinson, if he speaks in this debate, and hear if he has learned anything from what I have said.

Mr Peter Robinson: Not a lot.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am sure not.
I believe that local outlets must be considered. It is essential; it is vital; it is absolutely important that, before making any plans for any retail outlet, we look at what is happening in the existing indigenous retail trade in nearby towns. That is what I would like to see arising from this debate today. I hope these two reports will be looked at and that our Department will closely consider them. We should look at what has happened on the mainland and see that as a reason for making restrictions not just for the benefit of the big five, the customers, farmers and local traders, but for everyone. There has been an effect on local suppliers when these large companies move in.
I am neither against competition nor people getting the best deal. I am against people taking over from others who have worked and who have had families depending on a trade. I shop in Tesco and Sainsbury’s and know how good they are, but we must look at this issue closely and carefully.
I will have great difficulty deciding how I will vote on this motion, but I will go along with what Mr Dallat said — and I will be listening to him during his summing up. While I would not like a moratorium, we need to look at impact assessments within planning approval in order that we can ensure that everyone gets a fair crack.

Mr Tom Benson: While I have some sympathy with the content of this motion I cannot support it. If it had referred only to out-of-town shopping centres then I could have offered my support, since I believe that these outlets help destroy town centre shopping. Large retail outlets in town centres can be advantageous and can improve town centre trade. I cannot support this motion as it presently stands.

Mr Joe Byrne: I support the motion because there is great concern among the Northern Ireland retail community. This comes largely from independent business owners who have kept their businesses open during the past 30 years. They provided choice and services for people. They also provided full-time jobs for many of their workers. There is grave concern, however, that we are now going through such change in the retail sector, and could have such a plethora of large retail stores throughout Northern Ireland, that we are going to do great damage to the fabric of our local business community.
Mr Dallat asks for credible independent impact assessments. Surely nobody would be against those. At the moment, impact assessments are being done at the behest of the very large property development companies. As Mrs Bell said, surely the consultants who carry out those assessments are largely working from the perspective of being in favour of the proposed development by the large property development company.
I am not against large retail stores either out of towns or in the middle of towns, but we must have balance.
Some provincial towns — indeed, some district towns — are suffering a gross distortion of normal retailing patterns. If a very large store is built on the edge of a provincial town, its centre is devastated.
There is also a serious question about the rates income base of some developments. If there are 50 small shops in a provincial town, they all pay rates, yet the rates bill for certain large developments does not always add up to the total existing rates income from the small independent retailers.
The debate comes down to the absolute positions of being for or against this. I am a great believer in balance in such situations, and it would be terrible if we allowed the current situation to continue. There will be very few independent retailers left, and the sector will feel badly let down by us in the Assembly. Independent retailers are part of the community and do not close up shop when the going gets tough. They have a stake in their community, for they have invested in their shop or premises. When profit margins are squeezed, they do not close up shop and leave.
Such large retail stores are very often built by property development companies, and I have nothing against them. However, they charge exorbitant rents, which people wishing to run a small independent business cannot afford, resulting in our only getting multinational or national retail stores, something which is changing the whole fabric of our retail base. I support the motion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: There is general concern throughout Northern Ireland, on the part of both councils and retailers, about the way the present planning policy operates and some of the adverse effects it can have. It is a pity that the Minister of the Environment, Mr Sam Foster, is not here today, for Eileen Bell’s speech — although I think she is trying to take over part of Belfast — made reference to a particular application where, on two occasions, the court ruled against the Department. However, in the House some weeks ago, the Minister said his Department would pursue the application once again, despite having being rebuffed in a judicial review on more than one occasion. It is significant that he is continuing the policy of the old direct-rule Administration. Minister RichardCaborn said
"Let me make it clear that our policy is to focus new food store floor space in existing centres."
He goes on to give good reasons why major retail food-store developments in town centres can be a good thing for them, yet as soon as this Assembly was suspended, the Minister gave the Labour party supporter, Sainsbury’s, permission at D5. Only the courts, through a judicial review, were able to overcome that.
There is general concern that, in arterial routes in town centres, the vitality of town centres is affected by some major retail outlets. We must have a proper look at planning policy to see how we can respect consumer choice while maintaining the vitality of our town centres and supporting those small independent retailers who lend them variety.
As indicated by Mr Paisley Jnr, we will not be supporting this motion. MrsBell summed up the opposition to it better than anything else said so far: "I think what he is saying is that …". Any motion that comes before this House in which somebody has to try and imagine what the proposer is getting at is really not worthy of support. This is regardless of our concerns about the impact of present planning policy and planning decisions on the retail sector.
Ian Paisley Jnr outlined some of the difficulties. What is a major retail outlet? Are we talking about all major retail outlets? What length of time should this moratorium take? How on earth is it to be implemented? How does it protect the existing retailers? You can rest assured of one thing, neither the planning order nor ‘PPS5’ entitles the Department to impose a moratorium and refuse a planning application. There are people here who are better qualified to judge this, but that is my understanding of judicial reviews. That would immediately give a developer the opportunity to say that the process has not been adhered to, and the application would finish up in court. Or, if the application went in and was not determined by the Department, he would immediately go to the Planning Appeals Commission for non-determination, so taking the application out of the public domain. Given some of the decisions of the Planning Appeals Commission I am not so sure that benefits anybody.
The most woolly part of the motion is that which states
"there is a policy in place which gives shoppers maximum choice but at the same time protects legitimate rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade."
I imagine that the people who wrote the ‘PPS5’ document, which is ambiguity epitomised, would have been proud of the wording of this motion. It gives the opportunity for a coach and horses to be driven through.
The present legislation and policy really addresses many issues that we all have concerns about. If you look at the present policy — and I am not going to bore you with all the details — there are a number of issues covered in it. In paragraph 6, the Department talks about the need to protect the vitality of town centres and the importance of town centres, and yet we can still get edge-of-town and out-of-town major retail developments through. Paragraph 7 talks about the need to, where possible, reduce the need for travel and encourage alternative transport to the private car. We still get shopping centres that require the use of a car and which are not to the advantage of the 40% of the population who do not have access to private transport. Paragraph 17 talks about the way in which small towns are vulnerable, because of their size, to the impact of out-of-town retail development, but again we still get them. The only situation where anything is banned is in paragraph 35 where it talks about
"no justifiable need for a regional new out of town shopping centre in Northern Ireland."
This is why definition is so important, and John Dallat should learn from this. Despite that prohibition in ‘PPS5’ we had the direct rule Ministers on two occasions, despite court judgements, authorise what can only be described as a regional shopping centre at D5. We have the current Minister seeking to justify the decisions of his Department pursuing it yet again.
That is why we need a motion which clearly defines what we mean otherwise things would be left open to interpretation. Moreover, impact assessment is catered for in paragraph 58 of the document. The Department will require that. I do not want to go through all that impact assessment is meant to do. The present planning policy covers many of the issues raised in the motion, but it too is ambiguous and open to interpretation and simply enables the planners to go ahead and keep on doing what they have done in the past.
The credibility of the Assembly is at stake if we ask Ministers to review policy because it happens to look good or it is something we are concerned about or it is something that constituents have drawn to our attention. We can not support any old thing regardless of how clear or how useful it may be. I do not want to be negative. I have been negative about the motion, but that is not my fault. That is the fault of the person who proposed it. I do not want to see what I have said being interpreted as a lack of concern for planning policy and the way it is treated in Northern Ireland at present, or for what happens in arterial routes and town centres.
There are a number of things which can be done. First, the Assembly can reject this motion. Then perhaps the Chairman of the Environment Committee will take up the issue, ask the Committee to consider the points raised during this debate and come forward with a credible policy.
Secondly, there are a number of things the planners could do. They could look more clearly and vigorously at the requirement for the sequential test, where developers must show that there are no alternatives to the site they have chosen, even if that means parcelling up parts of the development into bits and pieces of ground to show it is possible, or that it has not been possible, to facilitate the development either on one or a number of other sites in more suitable locations. Also, rather than saying the developer has to pay for an assessment, whatever the cost, the planning application should include a cost for an assessment, which will be carried out independently on behalf of the Department. We all know that if you pay for consultation you will get the result you want. It should not be an open-ended thing. That would be unfair on developers. We must strike a balance.
Thirdly, the sooner we have local plans in place — and many are outstanding or have been out of date for a long time — the sooner there will be an input for public and local representatives and local concerns in the planning policy.
Those are the kind of things the Environment Committee and the Minister ought to be looking at. The crazy notions — and I do not mean that in a derogatory way — in this motion are something that would damage our credibility, if we were to support them.

Mr Francie Molloy: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I support Mr Dallat’s motion. It is an important motion at the present time. It will go forward to the Minister and the Department, and they will develop a policy that will change the criteria that executives have to face at present.
Unfortunately we have found that planners are using the criteria set by previous British Ministers to implement their new area plans. They have done this without any weight or assessment of the impact on local interests in the areas concerned. This applies particularly to the major developers, and a number of towns do need and require major developers to come in.
It is important that we concentrate on what is being asked for — a credible independent impact assessment. That does not pose a threat to anyone. Several Members have said that impact assessments undertaken so far were not credible. They involved developers making proposals — consultation exercises — which delivered only what they wanted. The more they paid the more they got, and things were approved in that way.
The Department has to create the need for a credible independent impact assessment on all major developments. Criteria defining what constitutes a major development need to be set. At present when impact assessments are used, the Department of the Environment planners can, for example, call for a traffic impact assessment. However, credible impact assessments need to be developed across all areas.
The differences between various projects are very noticeable. In some cases where a major developer is involved an impact assessment will be called for, while in other cases it is not requested. People often feel that assessments are being used to block opposition, to help other developers, and that different approaches are taken in each area.
Today, it is important to work from the basis that a standard needs to be set across the North, so that planners will ask for a credible independent impact assessment on all major retail outlets. If we do not do that then the town centres we are currently trying to develop will just disappear. Many town centres are under pressure. Rates are one issue, and not being able to attract business because of opposition to development is another.
We need to maintain the credible town-centre development that has occurred in several areas. I ask the Members to support this motion, and to ask the Minister to undertake a reassessment.

Mr Patrick Roche: This motion reflects a mindset that is entirely opposed to practically everything that is required to lay the foundations for economic well-being in Northern Ireland. There is a closed and parochial mindset reflecting a type of economic thinking that brought the United Kingdom to ruin in the late 1970s. It has ruined nearly every other country in which it was applied.
In this motion we have total opposition to the two things required for a successful economy: consumer choice, and competition through the market mechanism. What has been proposed is a moratorium on both. There are some problems that have to be recognised, such as the impact of large retail outlets on inner cities. However, to deal with these problems effectively we need to devise policies that will assist competition in the inner city regions. It is not appropriate to put a moratorium on the market mechanism. We spoke recently to some business leaders in Belfast. They expressed concern about the problems of transport and access to Belfast city centre, and made some very imaginative proposals for dealing with these problems. They were also concerned about the tolerance of criminality. Sometimes when goods have been displayed on the pavement, they have disappeared within 30minutes.
They were also concerned about the lighting problem; Belfast is a very dark city at night. Tourism and the cultural development of Belfast city centre is an issue too. Our response was that some of these matters are the responsibility of the Assembly and local government but that an enormous number of them were matters for themselves, as businessmen, to address. They should be prepared to address these as long-term investments in their own businesses’ prosperity. We took the opportunity to tell them that over the next two or three years they should put as much effort into making a real contribution through their businesses — for example, to ensure that Belfast city centre is competitive in relation to supermarkets developed outside the city — as they did in the case of some completely daft proposals about a single Irish economy and a Dublin/Belfast corridor. If they did that, they would be laying the basis of their future success, and not their own ruin as in the case of the corridor and all that nonsense.
The idea that the Northern Ireland economy will be assisted, or that any problems will be solved, by stifling and placing a moratorium on the market mechanism is absolute nonsense. Equally, there are occasions when the Assembly and local government, in conjunction with business, can take measures to assist competition in areas that are now relatively uncompetitive. That needs to be addressed, but it is certainly not addressed in this motion. This motion needs to be rejected out of hand.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: MrDallat indicated that the Agriculture Committee had brought forward a report which suggested that they were opposed to retail developments. The report said no such thing. It did say that retailers ought to treat producers fairly. I do not believe that any farmer in Northern Ireland is calling for shops to close down; they want their produce in the shops. The issue for the farmer is the price that the shops are paying him for his produce.

Mr Patrick Roche: Absolutely. The way to protect competition in Northern Ireland is through the market mechanism. The economic thinking of the SDLP, like their politics, is the road to ruin. It is indistinguishable from the thinking laid out in pages 92 and 93 of a book called ‘The Politics of Irish Freedom’. The sad and predictable fact is that if and when the leader of the PUP rises to speak, his thinking will share the same closed and parochial mindset as is evident in the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: Going by the debate so far there is obviously a bit of confusion surrounding this issue, which reflects the confusion surrounding planning policy in general. It is something which needs to be changed, and changed very speedily.
We discussed this motion’s wording and listened to criticisms from MrPaisleyJnr. We are concerned about the dangers that out-of-town shopping developments pose to small towns and local retailers — they must be addressed. That is the essence of this motion, and it cannot be ignored because of the wording. It is important to take into consideration the need for balanced development between out-of-town retail super-shops and local towns and villages — the need to keep them vibrant and alive, and MrDallat’s opinion that the heart and soul of the community is the local town.
We need vision, we need strategy, we need consultations, we need consideration, and we need community involvement. We have got none of those yet. Surely if we look at the motion we see that it is basically suggesting "Hold on, boys, until we get this properly planned".

Mr Peter Robinson: That is a sexist comment.

Ms Jane Morrice: Vision is what is probably needed so that we can get this right.
I am sorry that MrPaisleyJnr is not in the Chamber for I want to refer to his comments about interference "in the natural course of market forces". I wonder when he was last in one of the major superstores. On the subject of interference, when you look for Tayto crisps, you cannot find them on the shelves any more because the supermarket’s own brand is up front there. Talk about interfering in natural consumer forces: if you want the product that you have been used to, you cannot —

Mr Sammy Wilson: If you are looking for Tayto crisps, Tesco at Knocknagoney had them at the weekend.

Ms Jane Morrice: The problem is that they are getting harder to find. Local produce is getting harder and harder to find on the big superstore shelves. Why is that? It is because the superstores’ produce is guaranteed to get them better prices if they are put up front. I have had to search through all the potato crisps to find the Tayto brand.
It is a very serious problem and we have been lobbied about it on many occasions. I am sure all Members have seen the document from the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association called ‘And then there were none …’, which is about local independent retailers and where they are going. Those are the important considerations that need to be taken into account when we are looking at planning developments for superstores. The document refers to the mass closure of small shops, the damage to the supply network, irreversible damage to rural communities, and lack of choice and access for consumers. All those things need to be taken into account when we are looking at superstore shopping and how it is carried out.
I want to make an important point about what is described as an "independent impact assessment". I talked to an experienced consultant who stressed the need for the independence of the impact assessment because the developer or big shopkeeper commissions the retail impact statement, and we all know what that leads on to — the statement is done but it is not independent. The key word in this motion is "independent".
The Department of the Environment should commission the impact statement and charge the developer as part of the application fee. I have spoken to experienced consultants. I said this to MrPaisley, who said that consultants are not paid unless they come up with an impact assessment that is favourable to the developer. Therefore the independence of the impact assessment is very important.
Let me move on to the words about the moratorium that have been criticised from this part of the Floor. I cannot find the exact quotation but ‘Strategy 2010’, the economic handbook for the future development of Northern Ireland, states that there should be a rethink on out-of-town shopping. The wise gurus of economic development are saying that. A headline in my local paper, the ‘County Down Spectator’, states "Empty shops shelve small retail hopes".

Mr Patrick Roche: I do not believe that there is a competent economist in Northern Ireland who would give any credibility to the so called ‘Strategy 2010’.
‘Strategy 2010’ has an enormous wish list, but it contains no strategy to achieve any of the items on that wish list. Therefore it is not a strategy, and it has been rubbished by some of the most competent economists in Northern Ireland.

Ms Jane Morrice: May I read the list of people who were involved in ‘Strategy 2010’, to whose words Mr Roche gives no credence? They are Dr Alan Gillespie, Mr Gerry Loughran (now head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service), Mr Frank Bunting, Mr Chris Gibson, Ms Teresa Townsley, Mr Bruce Robinson, Dr Aideen McGinley, Mr John McGinnis, Mr David Gibson, Sir Roy McNulty, and Dr Patrick Haren.
We must take into account all the different viewpoints that exist, whether they be the views of local newspapers, retailers, economists, or those expressed in Mr Dallat’s motion. There are major problems with this but the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is considering them all. There are problems with superstores, and we must work out how to deal with them. It is as simple as that.
The motion mentions a moratorium but does not put a time limit on it. That is important. If there were a time limit, it could be limited to, for example, 12months or until such time as the policy, vision and strategy are in place. The motion does not state that this is a lifelong moratorium, that there will be no more shopping centres. It is saying that we should get a strategy and a vision before we move. It is important that we know where we are going.
In this new dispensation in Northern Ireland, where we are trying to build peace and reconciliation, we must also try to build new structures, new environment policies and new policies to help us move forward. I think that is what this motion is about, and that is what the House should be considering.

Mr George Savage: I agree and disagree with some of the issues contained in Mr Dallat’s motion. Shopping trends have changed over the years, and there are quite a number of small, rural enterprises. I live in a rural area close to three villages where there are small enterprises. They are part and parcel of the rural way of life, and they must be protected. I know that things have changed in many ways, but that way of life must be protected.
Planning regulations must exist, but they should be tightened. Multinationals should be allowed to expand, but they should not be allowed to take over a whole town. There must be a limit on what they are allowed to do. These supermarkets — no matter where they start up — can be very beneficial to towns and to the other shops in them. For instance, when Marks and Spencer came to Sprucefield, many people said that it would ruin the town of Lisburn. It has not. It has given the town a tremendous boost.
Over the last year or 18 months, attempts have been made to open such a retail outlet in Lurgan, and we hope that that will happen. When the shopping complex does open, other things will flow from it, and the shops nearby will benefit immensely. Many things are happening at present, and people are entitled to a choice. In the rural areas where there are small enterprises people will go wherever they choose for fresh food and fresh fruit.
There is no reason why those people should be steamrolled over. Many small businesses in those areas have been trying, without success, to get planning permission. They should be given that opportunity. If the outlets are not beneficial to the area then they will not survive. As I said, trends have changed. Nowadays people work all hours. There are all-night shopping centres, and people have the choice whether they want to visit them. It would not be my choice, but I like to support my local area as much as possible. These retail outlets are essential. There is one thing staring me straight in the face with regard to types of businesses in town centres. What need is there for builders’ suppliers in the middle of a town? They have to be on the outskirts of a town or village because big lorries are constantly coming and going with materials. If they are in the middle of a town people constantly complain about the noise. I can not support the motion.

Mr Alex Attwood: I would like to comment on some of the contributions to the debate so far and, in particular, on the opening contribution from the DUP. The Member for North Antrim, in a rather typical speech, veered from verbosity to pomposity and this is reflected in some of his comments. He referred to MrDallat’s contribution as hare-brained, ill-advised and ill-informed. He then went into overstatement, referring to the motion as having a devastating effect and hampering development and customer choice for ever. That is verbosity and pomposity, and it did not inform the debate very well. It certainly did not represent the content of MrDallat’s speech.
The most interesting comment from the Member for North Antrim was the devastating contribution in which he said that nothing should be done to stop the natural course of market forces and the natural course of supply and demand. I have never heard a more dogmatic statement about laissez-faire economics in any Parliament in recent times than the Member’s that those factors should determine retail development in this part of Ireland.
If this motion is not accepted by Members then the conclusion will be drawn that that is the view of many people in the House. That will ill-inform planning development, commercial development and will ill-serve the many small retailers in the towns, villages and hamlets of North Antrim who no doubt have given votes in the past to that Member.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Member accept that it was made very clear that there are concerns and that the proper way of dealing with this would be for the Environment Committee to look at the issues and to come forward with informed proposals to the House?

Mr Alex Attwood: I am delighted, Sammy, that you came in, for the most eloquent indictment of the Member for North Antrim’s speech was your contribution. Standing behind the Member for NorthAntrim, you said explicitly that you thought that the best criticism of Mr Dallat’s speech —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Attwood, please address your comments to the Chair.

Mr Alex Attwood: — came not from the Member for North Antrim but from the Member for North Down. I thought that was the most telling indictment of the misinformation supplied by the Member for North Antrim.
12.00

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Attwood, will you please refer to Members by their surnames? There are several Members from North Antrim and South Down.

Mr Alex Attwood: Only one Member from North Antrim has spoken in this debate, Chair.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is "Mr Deputy Speaker", not "Chair".

Mr Alex Attwood: Thank you. I will note that.
Mr Sammy Wilson’s contribution was, as always on planning issues, thoughtful. He outlined a number of proposals that would influence planning development for retail developments in a healthy and creative way. He said nothing that we in this party would have any difficulty with.
The second point I want to make is that I want us to go back to what John Dallat said. If you actually read the speech, you will discover that it is a very well researched paper that borrows from experience in Britain, the Republic of Ireland and Europe in order to draw conclusions about what best informs planning policy in the North. It goes further than that. It lists the devastating statistical evidence about how many villages in Britain are no longer served by a shop and the devastating impact that that has on people without a car, the elderly, the disabled and the disadvantaged generally. It talks about how many countries in Europe have tried to implement planning policy to ensure that major retail developments do not run riot in their economies. It invokes evidence given to two Assembly committees.
On that point, I thought the contribution of MrRoche was particularly noteworthy. He gave way to Mr Paisley Jnr, who said that the Agriculture Committee did not draw the conclusions that John Dallat said it did. The Agriculture Committee said explicitly in its report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland — A Fair Deal for the Farmer?’ that it identified the need to examine the planning policies in relation to large multinationals because of their immense power to monopolise and dictate prices.
Mr Roche should agree with that, rather than agreeing with Ian Paisley Jnr, whom he seemed to be in accord with, and who then went off on a wild goose chase, quoting the writings of Gerry Adams as if they were somehow relevant to this debate. I think he should go back to what the committee said and respond to that, rather than scoring some narrow point based on the writings of another Member. I have not heard any credible indictment of, or disagreement with, the core content of this motion from the Ulster Unionists, the DUP or anybody else.
I want to end by going back to the core of the motion. What does the motion say? It invokes a number of principles. The first one is that there is a need for credible independent impact assessments. I have heard no Member say that that is a false principle. I have heard Members say that the fact that multiples appoint their own assessors is not an appropriate response to ensuring that economic development of superstores is developed in a planned and systematic way. I have heard nobody say that the current system is credible and independent, but I have heard people, including Sammy Wilson, say that there is a need for credible independent impact assessments, and that that principle should be upheld by voting for this motion.
Secondly, I have heard nobody say that the principle that John Dallat outlined — namely, giving shoppers maximum choice while protecting the legitimate rights and needs of indigenous retail trade — is false. Nobody has disagreed with that. That is another reason why this motion and those principles should be endorsed. As for Mr Dallat’s suggestion of a moratorium, what does that mean?
The purpose of a moratorium is not to prevent development but to let us manage development properly, get it right and in the meantime not have any of these major retail developments because they are prejudicial. Why should the Chamber support this motion? As MrDallat said, there is an ongoing review of planning development in the North. He said
"The Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, is on record as saying that the planning document ‘PPS5’ is to be reviewed shortly, while the Deputy First Minister has announced that a Planning (Amendment) Bill will be introduced to the Assembly during this session."
How can we inform both the review of PPS5 and the Planning (Amendment) Bill? The way to do it is to say on the Floor of the Chamber that there are a number of principles, which JaneMorrice outlined in a very powerful contribution, that should inform what they are doing. Those principles are the credible independent impact assessments for major retail outlets, maximum choice for shoppers, protection of legitimate rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade, and a moratorium — not forever, but in the interim — until the Government get those planning considerations correct. The best way to influence what the Government are doing now is to pass this motion. I commend it to the House.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The motion before the House today gives us a welcome opportunity to debate the issue. There is no doubt about that. However, in the wording there is a lack of definition that contributes to doubts in our minds about whether we can support the spirit of the motion. We can relate to MrDallat in the underlying spirit of the motion, but having considered the issue carefully, I cannot support it in its present form. However, it is a timely opportunity to debate an issue that cuts across planning issues, and the economic fabric and social structure of our society. There are also commercial considerations.
I have drawn on the EDAW final report of January 2000, ‘The Northern Ireland Town Centre Re-invigoration Study’, and the planning document ‘PPS5’. I trust that my remarks will be constructive and help the debate as it is carried forward. The EDAW final report identified major retail development as a key policy issue. It said
"One of the key policy issues for planning in Northern Ireland is the impact of major retail development and particularly out-of-town retailing. The initial surge in superstore development proposals in the mid-1990s have now been joined by demands for non-food and other multiples... The impact of the volume of applications has resulted in significant delays in the time taken to process them.
There is a considerable volume of floorspace with permissions likely to get permission which will take some time to feed through to development have on identifiable impact on existing town centres."
I have difficulty with the considerable number of applications and the lack of definition of a major retail development. ‘PPS5’ indicates that a major development is something over 1000sqm, but it is not clear from the motion that MrDallat means precisely that. Without some further clarity I would be opposed to a moratorium at this time.
I do not think that we can argue with the objectives listed on page three of the ‘PPS5’. The Government’s objectives for town centres and retail developments is to sustain and enhance their vitality and viability, to focus development, especially retail development, in locations where the proximity of businesses facilitates competition that benefits all customers and maximises the opportunity to use transport other than the car, to maintain an efficient, competitive and innovative retail sector and ensure the viability of a wide range of shops, employment services and facilities which are easily accessible. The Department is committed to freedom of choice and flexibility in terms of retail development throughout Northern Ireland. That is all quite clear, and we can all identify with those objectives and that approach.
However, in the first recommendation EDAW indicates that there is a strong case for ‘PPS5’ to be reviewed, as a matter of priority. The present policy is ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation by the Planning Service. Despite the clarity of the objectives, there seems to be some ambiguity or difference in interpretation that might cause problems.
It is suggested that a retail capacity assessment for Northern Ireland should be commissioned, to provide an objective, independent base upon which to assess further applications for more major retail developments. That would also be helpful. "Credible" and "independent" are the operative words. The decision remains to be made as to where, and in what circumstances, any new development would be permitted. It is generally accepted that the locations of such developments would be market-led. Certainly the inclusion of a more explicit sequential test requirement would be desirable. It would be appropriate to offer more explicit guidance to applicants suggesting different types of town centre development, to encourage diversity.
Other Members commented on the fact that there are small towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland. The second recommendation of the EDAW report states that a review of policy on rural shop support and market town development be undertaken as part of a wider study of rural social exclusion. This recommendation is particularly relevant to my own constituency. Not only is it relevant in respect of the rural social support structure required for towns such as Banbridge, Gilford, Scarva, Waringstown, Donaghcloney, Magheralin and Seapatrick, but it also recognises the unique circumstance that the city of Craigavon includes two market towns — Lurgan and Portadown. After 30 years, substantial retail development in the centre sector of Craigavon is beginning to put a heart into the centre of Craigavon and has had a knock-on effect on the retail development of those two market towns. The challenge with regard to the retail sector is to ensure that market towns such as Lurgan and Portadown have the ability to attract and retain retail investment and maintain their viability and commercial vitality.
Therefore, it is important that planning policy recognise the legitimate rights and needs of indigenous retailers and maintain a vibrant economic fabric in small towns and villages across Northern Ireland. It is an undeniable fact that consumers are voting with their feet. Increasingly they wish to shop where there is comfort and protection from the elements, a wide range of goods, free car parking, and, of course, competitive prices. If indigenous traders wish to compete with the multinationals, there must be a new approach and a new attitude. Town centres must adapt to the twenty-first century consumer’s expectations and create an attractive and welcoming retail environment. Customer service and comfort must be of the highest order.
The proposer spoke of a moratorium on major retail outlets. I hope that that does not include smaller retail developments, many of which are in the planning pipeline and which, I hope, will provide an economic lifeline for certain communities in towns across Northern Ireland. Many of our towns are facing competition from existing major retailers in other towns. There is competition between towns. The establishment of the smaller retail developments in towns is one way of stopping the consumer haemorrhage and retaining shoppers in their own towns and villages. The retail trade must adapt to meet the expectations of the consumer. If that service is not available locally the shoppers, with their increased mobility, will shop elsewhere. That is a proven fact.
However, our market town centres require assistance as they struggle with the management of change. That is the key. Our traditional market towns need assistance. They need financial help with their infrastructure and with the creation of a new environment. I hope that there will be sufficient support in this House to include the financial provision within the appropriate departmental budgets to effectively maintain the viability and vitality of market towns and villages across Northern Ireland.
In closing, I say to Mr Dallat that in view of the degree of sympathy in the House for his general principle, perhaps he should consider withdrawing the motion in the best interest of the House. I think that on a future occasion or for a different motion, he would find unanimous support.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. When you read the motion, there is really nothing there that anyone could have difficulty with. Some of the opposition to this is either driven by one reason or it is city-driven to some extent. The motion has a creditable aim in independent impact assessments and a moratorium — which can be lifted at any time — on major retail outlets. I see nothing wrong with that, certainly as it affects the area that I represent, which is a rural area.
I have a document from the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association, which represents 874 independent food retailers. They claim that they are making a significant contribution to the local economy in terms of employment and revenue, as well as providing a strong focal point in local communities, and without some positive action from the Assembly, according to them, the future of the Province’s independent retailing infrastructure looks bleak. One statistic that is particularly striking is that 40% of small towns and villages in Britain no longer have a local shop. That has to be of concern to anyone.
This motion reflects the approach which has been adopted in respect of retail planning in the South of Ireland and, indeed, in many other European countries, although I think there is a need for some sort of limiting factor on large retailing outlets. There can be a benefit to the local retailers, however, and I agree with some of the arguments about size. If the size of the outlet is right, and it is placed in or near a town centre, then it can have added value for that town, and if the local retailers work together and utilise the resulting spending power, they can gain. The difficulty lies with the large out-of-town shopping centres, which, in many cases, lead to a displacement of jobs.
The Agriculture Committee’s recent discussion on retailing raised the business of profit. These large outfits can hoover money up from the local population. They have 90 days in which to pay back what they have paid for their products. They get a large amount of money from the local population, and they use it to build their establishments all around the world. They then use their power to wipe out the local retailers thereby creating their own monopoly. That is a business trend that is worked right across the globe. About eight main retail supermarket chains currently control virtually the whole food sector right across the world — certainly in Europe.
If you look at the small towns in the South — and small towns are significant, whether in the North or in the South — their picturesque townscapes are a very important part of the tourism industry. That has to be taken into account in terms of planning, and if one out of two shops in a main street are closed or shuttered up, that takes away from the character of those towns. That has to be a serious concern. There are out-of-town shopping centres in the South as well, and the large supermarket retailers have made progress in terms of placement there — there are 20 times more there than in the UK in the last three to five years. That is how quickly they have taken over in that part of the world. [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are five different private conversations going on in this room. That is very discourteous to the Member who has the Floor, not to mention very difficult for those who want to concentrate on what he is saying.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Perhaps people are discussing the repositioning of their argument.
Can there sometimes be a real saving to the customer as a result of large retailers being in a local town? People will often tell you that there is no real saving to be made overall, whether you use the small local shop or the very large supermarket chain, because what is gained on one thing will be lost somewhere else.
Another factor, so far as agriculture is concerned and so far as I am concerned, is the traceability of products. The whole issue of genetically-modified food and imports and their quality can be lost in the business of own-branding. I am concerned about this, but it is the trend and one over which we have very little control.
As far as ‘Strategy 2010’ and other strategies which talk about investment and planning the way forward are concerned, it is important for there to be jobs and investment so that people have money to spend in their own areas. In Fermanagh we lost 600 jobs in the last two to three years. Such areas do not have the money to spend on large supermarkets, so it is also a question of getting the balance right.
In any area there can only be so much of the cake of spending power. The Six Counties is a small area with a small population, so there is only so much money to go around for spending. One has to consider who is going to cut the small retailer out first. I believe that the large supermarket retailers have the power to close down small villages and towns completely.
The other question in rural areas relates to the provision of roads and the infrastructure around these large businesses. The fact that people in small towns do not have cars, or a system of travel to these places, has to be taken into account.
Another issue relates to agriculture and the confusion that was brought in earlier. It is that of local suppliers versus the retailers. The findings of the agriculture report show that large retailers have less loyalty to local suppliers. There have been instances of the large retailers dropping contracts a year into the term of the contract because it suits them better to get their produce from an outside, cheaper source. It is one of the difficulties faced by local farmers and people trying to run small businesses.
Those are many of my concerns. I support the motion.

John Taylor: Mr Dallat is to be commended for bringing this motion before the House. It addresses a serious problem for Northern Ireland — one that is a matter of great controversy in the community.
As this is such an important matter, it would increase the prestige of the House if a Minister were to be present to listen and to respond at the end of the debate. Hearing the views of a Parliament or Assembly should always be given priority over other activities.
It may well be that this motion has come too late and that the horse has already bolted. As we have heard, damage has already been done. I particularly dislike the reference to a moratorium. Mr Attwood said that the moratorium would last only until there was a review. Members know that reviews can take many years in Northern Ireland. Therefore there will be a complete stoppage on new large retail outlets in Northern Ireland for years ahead if the Members support Mr Dallat’s motion.
I am against a moratorium for that reason. I know of several major retail projects at an advanced stage of planning which will be located, thank goodness, in town centres. These will provide hundreds of jobs in the centres of our towns, and it would be very damaging to those towns if we supported Mr Dallat’s motion and so prevented these major projects from being able to proceed.
We should not fall into the trap of knocking the large retail outlets like Dunnes, Sainsbury’s, Safeway or Tesco, for in addition to providing jobs, they help the economy of Northern Ireland by purchasing products from our producers. For example, both Sainsbury’s and Tesco are each now buying at least £100 million worth of Ulster-made products — not just to sell in their outlets in Northern Ireland, but also to sell throughout Great Britain.
In Dungannon, for example, Granville Meats benefits tremendously from its contract with Sainsbury’s, and Foyle Meats in Londonderry benefits tremendously from its contract with Tesco. It must not be a knocking operation against the large retail outlets.
It is, however, a major controversial issue, which has had a damaging impact on some of our towns. We have had some good projects like the Tesco one in Dungannon and the Sainsbury’s one in the centre of Armagh city. However, the Abbey Centre, for example, nearly knocked the heart out of Carrickfergus. It is only in recent years, since Tesco opened in the centre of Carrickfergus and the Co-op store opened near the centre of the town, that the economy and retail centre of Carrickfergus have begun to advance again.
The same applies to Belfast. The D5 project and the Tillysburn project are damaging to Holywood and to the great city of Belfast. There is a major planning issue at stake. Some people say that it requires the review of the planning consultancy document, ‘PPS5’. However, I do not subscribe to that. The problem is narrower. It is "What is a town centre?" ‘PPS5’ refers to planning retail outlets in town centres. The issue is how one defines "town centre". In the city of Armagh, where I live, Sainsbury’s built a major store right in the centre of the city, and that was good for the town. However, Tesco now has a plan for Armagh also — way out on the LoughgallRoad. When I enquired, I was told "Oh yes, that is inside the town centre." It is about two miles or a mile and a half from the town centre, but, because of the town plan for Armagh, it qualifies as being a town-centre project. However, if that Tesco project goes ahead it will decimate all the privately owned shops in the centre of Armagh city. We need the Minister responsible for planning in Northern Ireland to define "town centre" as a matter of urgency.
Resources will be needed. One of the problems with large retail outlets is that many of them need inquiries to be held. Many are delayed. I know retailers from Britain and the Republic of Ireland who are investing in Northern Ireland. They say that it takes much longer to get planning permission in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the British Isles. Investment here is held back by the planners. That is not because they lack qualifications but because they lack resources and numbers. The real core of the problem is that we need more investment in our planning Department. That would enable town plans, and especially town centres, to be redefined as a matter of urgency, so that large retail outlets can be forbidden to build outside town centres.

Mr Mark Robinson: Is it in order for the Member for Strangford, Mr Taylor, to chastise the Minister for Regional Development for his absence, given that the primary responsibility for the subject lies with the Department of the Environment? The Minister for that Department, Mr Foster, is swanning about in London, supposedly on North/South ministerial business.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I understand — and I may look at Hansard — that Mr Taylor did not name any Minister or the reason for a Minister’s absence from the Chamber.

Mr David Ervine: Mr Dallat should not be particularly disappointed. I think that his motion will be defeated, and my party will be assisting in the defeat. I do not think that one sentence can sum up the difficulties that planning issues present to all of us. There are massive concerns. I hear much commentary about out-of-town shopping.
Some short references have been made to suppliers, notably agricultural suppliers. These are important groups to consider, but where does a bakery, which is not an agricultural supplier, fit into the scenario? One wonders how companies manage to make bread in Great Britain and transport it over for less than the cost of making bread here. We can question the percentage of Northern Ireland produce stocked by major retailers here, while considering the fact that European law does not oblige them to stock a minimum percentage of local goods. We are trapped. As Mr Taylor said, the horse may have bolted. We are dealing both with planning issues of the future and the aftermath of planning disaster.
According to Paddy Roche, the situation is fine because everything operates on the basis of profit and loss. Quality of life is affected when small towns are denuded of their shopping facilities. Small towns are not the only areas affected. Some Members may travel to this building by coming off the Sydenham bypass and driving along the Newtownards Road or the Albertbridge Road — roads which, along with others in East Belfast, were previously vibrant shopping areas. If you travel after teatime you will drive along canyons of shuttered premises, with the odd light shining from a takeaway shop and no sense of vigour in the area. This is happening all over society, not just in small towns. The vibrant areas of Belfast which, in the past, were almost like self-contained villages have been massively affected and not just by out-of-town development, by development in the town as well.
I have witnessed dramatic changes in the community where I was born and raised and for which I am an elected Member. I understand these changes more than some because I used to be a shopkeeper. I have worked for a living, contrary to common opinion and possibly that of MrRoche and the Northern Ireland Unionist Party. As a shopkeeper, I had great difficulty in competing. This was to be expected, given the small square footage of my premises compared to that of the large retailers. Nevertheless, if I had been determined enough I could have filled shopping trolleys in one of the major retail outlets and sold that stock myself to make a better profit than I did from goods bought at a cash and carry.
There is unfairness, but how was it created? Is it simply due to the purchasing power of the big retailers? We have heard it said that they screw the suppliers into the ground. A supplier becomes dependent upon a major retailer because he provides so much work that the supplier has no other business to fall back on. Then, just before his contract is due to be renewed, a so-called negotiation takes place and the supplier is screwed, usually on two counts. He will work for less money this year than he did last year. In Mr Roche’s economic terms, this may be perfectly legitimate, but in my terms it is absolutely abhorrent.
Alternatively, he may be forced to accept a special form of payment for which he has to wait a long time. The millions of pennies a major retailer retains in his bank account before paying money out will accrue substantial interest for the company.
I am also conscious of the plight of milkmen. Not all retailers have shops; some deliver products to the door. In the past, a milkman was regarded as making a valued contribution to society — he may have been the only person an elderly customer saw all day. A friendly face at the door may give sustenance to an elderly, incapable person.
There is a price to be paid for this, of course. For instance, as retailers massively reduce the price of milk, to below the point where a milkman can legitimately deliver and make a profit, it is not just the retailer or the person behind the counter who is affected. There is a knock-on effect, because the producer of the milk has to get his workers to work for less when the time to renew his contract with the main retailer comes up and if the price does not suit, the main retailer will ship in, just as is happening with bread, from Great Britain.
I do not know if Members are aware of this, but the bakery industry and the milk industry have gone through turmoil. The number of employees in bakery manufacture has almost halved, yet hardly a word is said about it. Is it because people do not eat bread? Or has it to do with how we fill the supermarket shelves?
I think that when Mr Dallat put his motion down he was not looking deeply enough at the matter. This is about jobs; this is about quality of life; this is about choice. The population will vote with its feet and go for the best deal. Like the rest of us, the people have to watch their pennies. And it is those who dictate the policies at the till who will have the people coming running towards them. I have seen this close to my home recently. A new supermarket has opened, and it is the flavour of the month. There is no question about it — I cannot get my wife out of it. It is the flavour of the month.

Mr Jim Shannon: Don’t give her any more money!

Mr David Ervine: I take risks, but not of that sort.
The major retailer is new, and it is cheap. There is no question about that. Of course, we are in the European Union; it does not matter whether we are French or German, we are entitled to free trade, and much of that is to be applauded. But I lay this challenge down to all of us: I do not believe that my new, local supermarket has 1% of Northern Irish produce on its shelves. Not even 1%. If this is the case it is shameful that we, the politicians, do not exact some price from these people when we welcome them to our bosom and allow them to begin to destroy our quality of life.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am in an unusual situation today in that I have some sympathy with what Mr Dallat had to say. The motion, as it stands, is not acceptable, but the general idea behind it was good enough, and I certainly have a lot of sympathy with it. I go to towns in my own area, like Dunmurry or Dromore, which were once vibrant shopping towns. Once many people would have been seen during the day going in and out of the shops, and a lot of trade was done in those towns.
Those shops normally bought their goods locally, and the money was reinvested in the community. That was a good thing. However, over 30 years ago supermarkets started to set up. Crazy Prices, Wellworths and other big supermarkets were set up by local people in the first instance. Subsequently those supermarkets were taken over, and many new clothing retailers came to the province. We now have Next and Habitat and Mothercare, all those different companies.
The trouble with Mr Dallat’s motion is that it does not let us know exactly what a major retail outlet is. Is it just the Tescos and the Sainsburys of this world? Is it the Nexts? Is it the Habitats? Where do we stop? Do we stop at a multinational retailer which has a store of 1,500 square feet? Where exactly we stop is not clear.
We had talk of a moratorium, and I was interested in Mr Attwood’s analysis. A moratorium kills off the matter. I could not quite understand what Mr Attwood was trying to say about a moratorium; it just did not make sense. We cannot have a moratorium put in place. Today we are enacting human rights legislation, and one of the key areas of human rights legislation that was taken up, and lost, by the Scottish Parliament related to planning matters.
I have no doubt that if this instruction went to a Minister and he carried out that instruction, the Minister and the Department of the Environment would soon find themselves called to court by a major retailer, and that that court would find in favour of the retailer. So, enacting this particular motion would end up costing the Department of the Environment a substantial amount of money.
It is not legally tenable to carry out this motion, which refers to credible independent retail impact assessments. I am holding a credible independent retail impact assessment that was carried out by Ferguson and McIlveen on behalf of Lisburn Borough Council. It relates to an out-of-town shopping centre that has been proposed for the Sprucefield area of Lisburn. I would like to identify a number of differences between the independent retail impact assessment and what has been put forward on behalf of Stannifer Developments Ltd and J Sainsbury.
With reference to the original assessment from Stannifer Developments Ltd and J Sainsbury, it says that it fails to account for market penetration outside the 20-minute drive time band. It does not acknowledge difference in the trade draw characteristics between comparison and convenience goods; it does not account for trade diverted outside Lisburn town centre; and, most critically, does not adequately justify turnover figures. Moreover, it provides an entirely unrealistic turnover figure, and the degree of trade diversion from the town centre is minimised.
That shows a difference between two retail impact assessments. One provides an honest analysis, and the other an analysis that suits the needs of the person paying for the job to be done. My Colleague, Mr Wilson, clearly made the point that, should a retail impact assessment need to be carried out, it should be carried out by the Department of the Environment. That would be a properly independent retail impact assessment. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and in this instance — as I have pointed out — we have the J Sainsbury and Stannifer Developments Ltd people paying the piper and the piper delivering the tune they wanted to hear.
When the council asked for an assessment a completely different scenario was painted. I will just indicate the impact that this would have on the general area of Lagan Valley. J Sainsbury proposed an 80,000 sq ft convenience food store. It is estimated that on current trends they would have a turnover of £700 to £1000 per sq ft. That gives a turnover figure of £56 million to £80 million, and 80% of that trade comes from within 20 miles. That gives in the region of £45 million to £64 million spent within 20 minutes’ drive of Sprucefield roundabout and will include the areas of Banbridge, Craigavon, parts of south Belfast, Ballynahinch and Dromore. If £64 million is being spent in J Sainsbury at Sprucefield, that money has to be taken away from other retailers.
No doubt there will be a big announcement about job creation, both in the construction of the building and that which follows the opening of the new superstore. We have heard it all before. We have heard how many new jobs have been created in Belfast many times when Tesco, Safeway or J Sainsbury open a new store. However, O’Hara’s bakery closed and 350 jobs were lost. A number of other bakeries situated in Belfast closed. A butcher’s shop closed with the loss of four jobs and a greengrocer’s closed with the loss of another eight jobs.
Throughout the city there was a levelling-off effect. The jobs that were created in the supermarkets were lost in the indigenous stores.
We have a great deal of sympathy for Mr Dallat’s proposals. However, in the centre of my own town, Lisburn, a local company with a good track record called Cusp Ltd is to build a £25 million development. It wishes to have a department store as anchor tenant for the scheme. Had this proposal been in place before planning permission was given for the Cusp development, it could not have gone ahead, despite the fact that it is a major development bringing in retailers from outside the Province. It will regenerate an area of Lisburn, bringing more customers in and helping the indigenous shops already in the town, for it will bring extra trade to it. In many areas, this motion would exclude new developments from coming in and setting up in towns.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Member mentioned Lisburn, but there are very similar examples in Strangford. The Castlebawn development, a £60 million project in Newtownards, will create 300 construction jobs and 1,500 jobs in the business and associated shops. This will reinvigorate the whole centre of Newtownards, for it is within walking distance of it. Does the Member agree that if we accepted Mr Dallat’s proposal today it would stop the development, since planning permission has not yet been granted?

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Member for a further example of the motion’s inadequacy. We should also look at the rates charges of many large retailers. A key advantage of the larger developments is the superabundance of available parking. If someone wishes to go shopping in Belfast city centre during the day he will come back to his car with a bill of £10 or £12. In other towns around the Province it could cost him £4 or £5. At Sprucefield he can stay as long as he wishes, for car parking is free.
The regional strategic framework is supposed to encourage people to move away from private transport towards public transport. One means of encouraging people to use public transport is the introduction of ever higher charges for parking in towns and cities. Supermarkets have free parking, giving them an inbuilt advantage. This can only be counteracted by raising the rateable value of supermarkets and out-of-town centres, leading to their paying more for providing free parking. They would obviously have to charge more for their goods, perhaps resulting in a somewhat more level playing field. That is one of the things which will have to be done for equitable competition between large and small retailers.
The story of small shops is not always black. I know many small shops which have reacted to the current situation and which are now doing very well. They regularly have a loss leader and provide goods at a reasonable price. The element of convenience is much greater. It does not take an hour and a half to get in and out, and they do not have as many shelves to wander round looking for goods. Some small retailers have done very well under present circumstances. Times change, and perhaps it is those retailers who have not changed with the times who find themselves in the greatest difficulty at the moment.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I state my support for those who have urged Mr Dallat to withdraw the motion for today. There could be widespread support for a motion of this nature. It is unfortunate there was not more consultation. I am not aware how much consultation took place in his own party — its members have never mentioned the issue in the Environment Committee. I appeal to him to withdraw it for today and enter into creative consultation with other Members to try to bring forward a motion which would have the Assembly’s support and gain credibility for its Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: Like other Members, I welcome the opportunity afforded to us by Mr Dallat to discuss this issue; this has been a useful and interesting debate. However, like other Members, I have concerns about the preciseness of the wording of the motion. I should state at the outset that much of what Mr Dallat and other Members who have supported the motion have said in their speeches is generally accepted. However, the motion does not say what they said in their speeches, and that is where the difficulty lies.
I represent a constituency in which there is a plethora of small shops. I am constantly hearing about the difficulties the retailers face in competing against the large supermarkets. These difficulties are obvious. They were explained very well by Mr Ervine, and I agree with what he said. It is difficult for the proposer of any motion to encapsulate, in one sentence, the issues that relate to planning in this sector, and I am not convinced that this motion has approached them in the right way.
One of the defenders of the motion, the Women’s Coalition spokesperson Jane Morrice, ended her remarks with the words "I think that is what this motion is about." The Alliance spokesperson, who generally supported the motion, also had to "think" what the proposer was attempting to say. That indicates that the motion is not precise. I am not going to get party political on this issue, but one thing that we in Northern Ireland should have learnt over a number of years is that before you sign up to something you should make sure you know exactly what it means. Members who sign up to this, either by a show of hands or by going into a Lobby, should be sure they know what it means.
I think I know what the proposer was attempting to say when he talked about credible independent impact assessments. In fact, I am wondering whether he wants more than one when he puts it in the plural. Are there going to be a number of independent assessments? Would you ever get an independent assessment of the impact of a planning application? The people who have argued for it in this debate are right when they say, as did my Friend, Mr Poots, that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Somebody has to pay for the consultants; I do not know of any who are so altruistic that they would carry out these independent assessments without being paid. Somebody will be calling the tune. If you have the assessment carried out at the behest of one person or another — be it the developer or the Department — will it be truly independent?

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: I should be delighted.

Ms Jane Morrice: Does not the Member agree that if, as I suggested, the Department of the Environment itself were to commission the impact statement, that would be an independent assessment?

Mr Peter Robinson: In the context of planning, no, I do not. When you come to any planning appeal, there are, in effect, two sides to the equation. One will be put by the planner, who is defending the decision that he has taken, and the other by the developer, who is appealing that decision. They are therefore partisan in terms of any hearing that may take place.
I am on a borough council, and you would not get too many councillors from any party represented on the council who are likely to say that the Department acted in an independent way in respect of some of the planning applications that it has been dealing with.

Mr Joe Byrne: A great deal of consensus is developing about this independent retail assessment and the question of who would pay for it. As Mr Poots suggested, the local authority would be best placed to commission such an assessment, since it encompasses the aggregate interests of the people in the area.

Mr Peter Robinson: Well, there will be difficulties. I am not sure whether too many councillors would put up their hands to increase the rates by taking on planning responsibilities. I have no problem with increasing the fees for planning applications so as to incorporate an amount that could be used for a planning impact assessment. It is not so much the payment that worries me, but rather who is in control. Who is the person carrying out the assessment going to report to? Ultimately, that is the person who will be calling the tune.
I think I know what Mr Dallat means by "major retail outlets" — that definition is central to his proposed moratorium — but it can mean different things in different areas. A major retail outlet in Belfast would be very different from what might be considered to be a major retail outlet in Strabane. The size of the catchment area and the density of the population would have an influence, unless we directly carry over the Republic’s definition of a major retail outlet, which, I believe, is anything over 30,000 sq ft. I suppose that if you propose a retail outlet of 29,500 sq ft, it will not fall under the moratorium, but I would have thought that in many parts of Northern Ireland, that would be considered to be a very major outlet.
I think that Mr Dallat is talking about out-of-town developments in his motion, but he did not say so, and therefore we must assume that it does not just mean out-of-town retail developments but also town centre developments. A number of Members have described the impact that a moraturium would have. I think the moratorium will give Members major difficulties in supporting this motion. There are two reasons for that, one of which has been mentioned by several Members, including Mr Taylor, and that is that the length of time that the review and consideration of this matter would take would create deadlock for up to a year.
However, in the precise terms of this motion it is a review of the policy that is being sought. I do not honestly think that the policy on these matters is that defective. I do not have great difficulty with the policy. The policy does seek the protection of the vitality of the town centre. The policy is in many ways OK. It is the implementation of that policy that is the problem. There could be a moratorium for a year or two while they look at the policy and introduce another policy which will do exactly the same thing in calling for the vitality of the town centre to be protected, but when it comes to implementation, unless the modus operandi of the planners who operate the system is changed, it will not have done any good at all in terms of the protection of town centres.
Jane Morrice referred to the balance that is necessary. There is a balance that one has to get between the competitiveness that is an essential component from the consumer’s point of view, in terms of prices and choice, and the protection of the vital part of the Northern Ireland culture that is the corner shop, the local trader and all that that means, not only to the town but to rural communities in the Province.
In closing, I thank Mr Dallat for putting down the motion. It has given us an opportunity to discuss the issues, but he will do a disservice to the planning issues that he is attempting to highlight if he proceeds to a vote on this matter. Far better if he takes the course that has been suggested and allows the Environment Committee to look at the wider and deeper issues involved. Without minimising the effort that I am sure he put into the wording of his resolution, the Committee could bring forward something less fuzzy, a bit more precise, with clearer definitions, and perhaps having considered the impact of some of the generalities that he has put down, and in particular his proposed moratorium.
Now that we have had the debate and had the issues aired, I hope that he will consider these issues. I will not make my attack on the Minister of the Environment as savage as that of the Member for Strangford, but I agree that the Minister, Mr Foster, would have been helped if he and his officials had been here for the debate. I hope these matters will be drawn to their attention so that they know what the Assembly feels about these issues. They would be better dealt with by the Environment Committee, instead of by way of a motion that might misinterpret the mood of the Assembly.

Mr John Dallat: I thank all the Members who took part in this debate, including my Friend Mr Paisley Jnr, who could have been more generous to me. Stupidity, rudimentary fashion, confused Willie — I am surprised he made any mention of sheep this morning, but anyway. Other Members were very constructive in their contributions. Many of them are from rural communities, and I know their hearts are with the motion, despite the fact that the debate began in a strange way and swung off at a tangent. There is nothing in this motion which will put anyone in a cul-de-sac or cause problems for them in the future. The credible independent impact assessment has been welcomed repeatedly. Moratoriums do not have to last for ever. They only need to last until there is a policy in place. Before he left, John Taylor said that the horse has already bolted for many people. It is right and proper that this suggestion is in place. For many people this debate has come too late. For many this Assembly came into being too late.
It would be unfortunate if this debate were used to pit one sector of the retail community against the other. That is not what is being suggested. I acknowledge that there are 20,000 people employed in major retail outlets, but the sector is dominated by what are commonly know as "the seven sisters of the superstores". The fear is that eventually this may develop into a monopoly, or even a cartel. I am pleased that there are representatives of 1,100 independent retailers listening to this morning’s debate. They represent 20,000 people, and they have every reason to believe that there is a renewed threat to their jobs, as a new wave of competition comes from the United States and from Europe. I have not said anything to oppose the existing supermarkets. I shop in them myself. I would be a hypocrite if I suggested that they should not be there. However, there is time for a reassessment of the situation.
It is right and proper that this debate has taken place. I am pleased that, despite their opposition to the wording of the motion, most Members agree that it should be accepted. Perhaps those who are vehemently opposed to it need to take time off to visit the places that they named. I encourage Mr Paisley Jnr to talk to Moores of Coleraine and to the other independent retailers there. I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to listen to this.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Oh yes, he is.

Mr John Dallat: Oh, he is. Why is he hiding in the back row?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member want to give way to me?

Mr John Dallat: Perhaps the next time he is in Coleraine he will look up the unemployed workers of Reid’s Bakery. Perhaps he will ask them what they think of the large superstores and what they did to their jobs. Perhaps he should go down to Tandragee and speak to the Tayto workers to find out how important the independent retail market is for their product. I hope he buys it, since he is a Member of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee.
He knows as well as I do that there are serious problems with the large multiples.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way?

Mr John Dallat: Sorry. I am summing up. You had all the time in the world.
Let me emphasise that there is nothing negative in this motion. On the contrary, it is an acknowledgement that we have something special in Northern Ireland which is well worth protecting. Whether it be Cullybackey — that is in north Antrim, by the way — Cullyhanna, Kilrea or Kildress or, indeed, any other town or village, it is worth making an effort to ensure that for future generations communities continue to have shops and local services.
The same is true of urban areas and I am glad that Members from those areas contributed. Whether it be the Falls or the Shankill, the Cregan or Waterside, the same is equally true. Each year at least £750 million in net revenue is exported from Northern Ireland to the bank accounts of multinationals in other places. The prospect of their increased turnover through the proliferation of even more stores is a bleak one for Northern Ireland economy in the long term. It must be taken into account in future planning.
The circumstances in which we have found ourselves over the last 30 years means that our economy has had to undergo serious change squeezed into a five-year span. The Assembly has the opportunity to establish a clear policy that will protect the local retailing infrastructure. That will ensure that there continues to be a vibrant independent retail sector providing for the needs of our people and that there never can be a fear of monopoly.
Reference was made to ‘Strategy 2010’, which should be implemented. At the same time, consideration should be given to commissioning a retail capacity study as recommended by EDAW. There should be a strategic review of planning policy to make sure that the future structure of retailing in Northern Ireland best meets our unique economic and social needs.
Finally — and there was some reference to this — steps should be taken to implement existing legislation in relation to rural rates relief. We should also introduce the further measure of rates relief for small town centre retailers, again as recommended in ‘Strategy 2010’, to prevent more small shops closing and further damage to the retail economy.
Despite the divisions, this has been a good day for the Assembly. People will see that we are interested in the affairs of our local communities and we are concerned about the people who live and work there. Collectively, we could have demonstrated a common purpose to protect and preserve what is best. At the same time, we can make it clear that change, when it comes, must be controlled and managed, and does not have the potential for destroying the very things we hold precious — our people and the communities in which they live.
Many people in this community need protection. We have made a very strong case for the farming community, which I back totally. Fundamental change is taking place there, but nobody is arguing that it should not be managed and controlled. Those in the independent retail sector — 20,000 people — deserve some rights too.
Finally — and this is where there was some distortion — if there is not an independent retail sector the housewife will have no choice. People will become slaves to a monopoly. The second phase of that monopoly is on its way from America and Europe. Time does not stand still. This Assembly was set up to address these issues. By and large, they have been addressed this morning in a responsible manner by all Members, with, I regret to say, one exception.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 33; Noes 39.
AYES
Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Michael McGimpsey, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney. [Tellers: John Tierney and Eugene McMenamin]
NOES
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, John Gorman, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
The sitting was suspended at 1.26pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that I have accepted a private-notice question, in the name of Mr Tommy Gallagher, to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The details of the question are in Members’ pigeon-holes. The item will be on the annunciator, and the question will be taken, in accordance with Standing Orders, immediately before the Adjournment debate, which I expect to be tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Agriculture And Rural Development

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the Minister that Mr Jim Wilson, in whose name question No 8 stands, has apologised for being unable to be here. The question will not be taken, but he will, of course, receive a written answer in the usual way.

Rural Development projects

Mr John Fee: 1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will outline what rural development projects have recently been launched, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 105/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: A number of rural development projects have been launched over recent months. I have taken part in several events, including the official opening of a quay development and slipway project at Gawley’s Gate, near Aghalee in County Armagh. I went to the rural college in Draperstown to launch the community building skill workbook, to the launch of shoreline amenities and visitor facilities in Broughagh, County Tyrone, marina development and workspace units on the shores of Lough Neagh at Ballyronan, and an education, training and tourism development project at Slieve Gullion Courtyard in South Armagh. I am looking forward to further events over the coming weeks, including a tourism project at Houston’s mill in Broughshane, Killcronaghan youth hostel and the official opening of workspace units, an information centre and a mill worker’s cottage museum in Bessbrook.
These and many other local projects were brought together under my Department’s 1994-99 rural development programme, and I am currently finalising proposals for the 2001-06 programme, which will bring further opportunities for rural communities.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she accept that over the last number of years, the rural development programme has given vitally important support to disadvantaged rural communities and that it is absolute essential that it continue over the next number of years?
It has been an extremely imaginative programme, and the division in her Department that administers it has been extraordinarily imaginative in the way that they have offered support to community projects. Will she accept that for that part of my constituency which is in South Armagh it is crucial that her officials continue to work with local community networks and groups to provide opportunities to create employment through alternative agriculture and to provide new opportunites in tourism?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I thank the Member for his question and, indeed, for his comments. I obviously agree with Mr Fee that rural development has brought opportunities to communities throughout rural Northern Ireland. It has focused on the more disadvantaged areas and has had a very positive impact on all of those areas, particularly in respect of job creation and of sustaining jobs.
As the Member rightly says, much of the border region falls into that catagory, and a good example of community and business opportunity is currently being brought forward by Oriel Developments Ltd, a community-based partnership company operating in Mr Fee’s own constituency, at Flurrybridge. The company is developing a rural enterprise park on the border to encourage the development and expansion of businesses in the area. This is, indeed, an important flagship project for the region, and I am looking forward to its launch in the early part of next year.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Does the Minister feel confident that the uptake under the new rural development programme will happen in a short enough time frame to allow the benefits from these new policies to compensate for the loss of the safety net of less favoured area (LFA) payments?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I do not think I heard the whole question, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Would the Member like to repeat it? I heard it, but I am not sure that it is in order. It seemed to go fairly wide of the question on the Paper.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Is the Minister confident that the uptake of the new rural development policies will happen in a short enough time to allow the benefits of those new policies to compensate for the loss of the safety net for LFA payment?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not sure that the question is in order, but I will answer it anyway. I think that the Member is talking about the safety net for LFA payments, which stretches over three years. I would be extremely surprised if, by that time, we were not in a position to deal with shortfalls or other problems that arise for farmers. The safety net is designed to allow farmers some leeway while they adjust to the new system of payment and to ensure that they are compensated during that period and that there is no loss on their part. I would be extremely surprised if the other elements of the programme were not in place by then.

Rural Development Regulation Plan

Mr John Dallat: 2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development if she will outline the main aspects of her Rural Development regulation plan and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 103/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The rural development regulation plan for Northern Ireland, which was submitted to the EU Commission on 25September for final approval, marked the culmination of a period of comprehensive consultation with the industry, the Agriculture Committee and other interested organisations. It also represents the outcome of intensive negotiations with the Commission on content and with the Treasury on funding. Overall, the plan submitted to Brussels is worth £266million to Northern Ireland farmers between 2000 and 2006. It provides for a significant expansion of our agri-environment programme and of the area of private forestry, as well as the mandatory replacement of the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme with an area-based LFA support scheme.
I am particularly pleased that, in the case of the LFA scheme, I was able to secure an additional £31·7million over the period until 2004, on top of the provision that had originally been budgeted for when my preliminary proposals were tabled with the Commission in February. This represents a significant improvement for Northern Ireland hill farmers and places the financing of hill support on a much more secure footing than has been the case in recent years. The additional provision within the plan for the agri-environment and forestry measures will be welcomed by farmers and environmentalists alike and will allow for a significant expansion of these programmes between now and 2006. My officials were in Brussels last week to discuss the draft plan, and I am optimistic that it will be approved later this month.

Mr John Dallat: The Minister’s answer is encouraging. Does she agree that the safety net negotiated in Brussels will be of critical importance to farmers over the next three years? Can she elaborate on that?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I agree that the safety net is of crucial importance to farmers, because of the movement from headage-based payments to area-based payments. It removes the uncertainty that they were facing under the new scheme and assures everyone that the payment they will receive, for instance in 2001, will be at least 90% of what they received in 2000. In the following year they will be assured of receiving 80% of the payment received in 2000. In the third year, they will be assured of 50% of the 2000 payment. This gives them time to plan ahead, take account of the new basis of assistance and manage any longer term change in their entitlement. It cushions the effect of the change.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister make a statement about the likelihood that farmers in the Silent Valley, who would have been in a position to gain from this safety net and from this funding, will now lose out, because the two Departments — the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department for Regional Development — failed to consult each other? They are both to blame for the situation.

Mr Speaker: Members are being remarkably creative and imaginative in the connections that they perceive between the supplementaries that they are asking and the original questions. Those connections seem a bit oblique to me. I shall leave it to the Minister to judge whether she is in a position to answer.

Ms Brid Rodgers: That is not on my agenda, but I have no problem in answering, if that is OK. The problems of sheep farmers in the Silent Valley are a very long way from the rural development regulations. It would have been more productive, particularly for the farmers, if there had been advance consultation between my Department and the Department for Regional Development. I was not consulted, and I do not want to comment any further on it today, except to say that consultation between Departments is extremely important, particularly when a decision of one Department impinges on another. In this case it impinges on the welfare of the farmers, who are going through an extremely critical time. It would have been better had there been consultation. There is consultation at this stage, but unfortunately it is a little bit late.

Area-Based Strategy Action Group Schemes

Mr Joe Byrne: 3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what plans she has to continue the area-based strategy action group (ABSAG) schemes which have existed throughout Northern Ireland in recent years.
(AQO 93/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Area-based strategies were a time-bound component of the 1994-99 rural development programme. They come to an end when spending under that programme stops in 2001. The 2000-06 rural development programme is currently being finalised. It is my intention to continue to provide scope for area-based action, but delivery mechanisms will depend on how partnerships evolve among key players at local level. I want to ensure that the work done under the current area-based strategies is built on, and I hope that through encouraging even stronger local partnerships the strategic delivery of rural development support will be further enhanced in the next round.

Mr Joe Byrne: The ABSAG areas designated in Northern Ireland have been an outstanding success, particularly for rural communities. Will the Minister tell us whether her Department has any plans to designate other rural areas that could benefit from this type of development? I hope that in the next round, we can have social and economic development in parts of Northern Ireland that did not benefit from ABSAG in the past.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The ABSAG concept was a new approach. The concept of area-based strategies has been adopted by other Departments and by other programmes. In a sense, it has now become a crowded market place. It is my intention that in the next round there should be room for local action groups. I hope to build on what has been achieved with the area-based strategies, and I look forward to new partnerships emerging. All new projects and partnerships will be looked at and encouraged. I hope to see many new areas and many new types of partnerships coming into being. I call on all those who could be involved in such partnerships — local councils and others — to look at it, because what I want to do is to develop, improve and build on what has been a very successful area-based strategy.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister will be aware of the good work being done in ABSAG areas. However, occasionally projects come to light which may not be sustainable. Unfortunately this does occur now and again, perhaps more so in the community sector. Can the Minister assure us that future developments within ABSAG will ensure that the sustainability of any project is a paramount consideration prior to its acceptance?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Sustainability will be an important part of any project we bring forward. The Member will appreciate that in addressing the issue of rural development, we are dealing with disadvantaged areas, and we are enabling communities to bring forward projects. There has always been an element of risk in that. My Department has been very brave in taking risks, ones that entrepreneurs would never dream of entering into. Having said that, I accept that the rural development programme is about social and economic improvement of disadvantaged rural areas. We must bear those two things in mind. Sustainability will be a very important part of the programme. It will not improve rural communities economically or socially if the programmes are not sustainable in the long run. The money will not last for ever. It is an important aspect, and we will consider how to ensure that any programmes we have are sustainable in the long term.

Beef: EU Labelling

Mr P J Bradley: 4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proposals she has to implement the forthcoming European Union regulations which stipulate that all European Union produced beef sold in supermarkets or butcher outlets must be labelled with the country of the animals birth and its country of fattening.
(AQO 76/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The new EU rules on beef labelling came into operation on 1 September 2000. The original proposal to show the category of animal was of particular concern to the local industry. I am pleased to record that, following lobbying by myself, the industry and the local MEPs, the proposal was deleted. Legislation to provide for enforcement of the EU rules in Northern Ireland is currently being drafted with a view to it coming into effect by the beginning of 2001. Guidance on the effect and operation of the new rules is being prepared and will be issued to the industry. EU rules do not require labels to show the country of birth and fattening until 1 January 2002.

Mr P J Bradley: If the ban on beef exports is relaxed will our beef products be clearly labelled as products of Ireland/Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Yes. All beef and beef products produced in the European Union must comply with EU rules on beef labelling. These will be implemented fully in Northern Ireland. However, in our proposals for a relaxation of the export ban, we have proposed that it contains a provision that all Northern Ireland produce for export will carry an additional mark of export eligibility. The format of the additional mark has yet to be agreed with the European Commission. Its main purpose, however, will be to identify to consumers throughout the EU and third countries the Northern Ireland origin of the product. Of course, the question of normal commercial labelling is entirely a matter for the companies. They can indicate, if they wish, that the product is of Irish origin.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Given that these rules apply to beef produced in the European Union, what action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that beef produced outside the EU and imported into Northern Ireland meets the high standards in production and labelling? Also, what proposals has she to help to offset the cost to the producer of implementing these regulations?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The cost to the producer will not be offset. However, had the initial proposals gone through — the proposals that we managed to change — the cost would have been 5p to 8p per kilogram. As a result of the changes that we achieved, the cost will be much less.

Modulation: Strategic Spending Analysis

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to confirm that if she is successful in obtaining more funds from the current strategic spending analysis this will enable her to spend all the proceeds from modulation on accompanying measures.
(AQO 84/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: Under the provisions of the relevant EU legislation it is clearly stipulated that funds arising from the application of modulation can be spent only on the so-called accompanying measures arising from the rural development regulation. Therefore I can confirm that, regardless of the outcome of the spending review, all proceeds arising from modulation in Northern Ireland will be spent on such measures.

Mr David Ford: Clearly, the Minister had some welcome news earlier this afternoon on the rural development measure. The Minister and I have tangled before on the application of modulated money. Can she confirm that the modulated funds will be spent purely for the benefit of farmers under agri-environment schemes and not be taken again by her Department to fund shortfall in other budget areas?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member asked me that question in the past in relation to what I had done. He is now asking me about what I will do in the future. It is a very dangerous thing for a politician to make commitments about what will or will not happen. In relation to the modulation money, the pound-for-pound match funding that accompanies the introduction of modulation leads to a significant increase in the money accruing to Northern Ireland agriculture. It opens up the possibility of introducing additional measures under the rural development regulation. We must spend the modulation money on the four measures that are laid down, and we can then extend that, with the match funding, to the other accompanying measures.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Can the Minister please outline her priorities for the spending review?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Department faces pressures across a number of areas, but I am particularly keen to be in a position to respond to the ideas emerging from the vision steering group. The major concern of the group is that there should be some mechanism for "rural proofing" all Government policies. That will not necessarily have immediate public expenditure implications, but some of its other ideas — for instance, in respect of information and communication technology, education, research and environmental issues — will require additional public expenditure or re-prioritisation.

Mr Speaker: Sometimes there may be an assumption by Members, when they see a series of questions from the same party as the Minister, that it has all been very well set up in advance. It is clear that there is greater integrity in the House than that.

Rural Development Regulation Plan

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how the farming community will benefit from the new rural development regulation plan.
(AQO 95/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: The rural development regulation plan for Northern Ireland will not only provide significant opportunities for farmers under its agri-environment and forestry programmes between now and 2006, but will also secure substantial additional funding in support of producers in hill areas. The plan will be worth a total of £266 million to Northern Ireland farmers between 2000 and 2006. Of this total, £163 million will be directed toward the new LFA support scheme, £88 million towards agri-environment measures, and £15 million towards forestry. The provision for the LFA scheme in particular marks a significant achievement, in that it represents an uplift of 50%, compared with my original proposal submitted to the EU Commission in February. The fact that we were able to secure almost £32 million of additional funding from the Treasury in recent months is particularly welcome. It allows farmers to plan their business in the knowledge that funding for the LFA support scheme has been put on a more assured footing.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Can the Minister advise Members of the expected uptake for the agri-environmental scheme?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The environmentally sensitive areas scheme has 4,500 participant farmers, with some 145,000 hectares under agreement. It is considered to be very close to its optimum level of uptake. However, it is anticipated in the rural development regulation plan submitted to Brussels that the organic farming scheme will grow from the present level of 20 farmers with 1,000 hectares under agreement to 1,000 farmers with 30,000 hectares, and the countryside management scheme, which will have its first entrants accepted later this year, will have 4,000 participant farmers with 150,000 hectares under agreement.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. Does the Minister agree that a large part, if not all, of the money from modulation, which will be used in different ways, came originally from farmers’ payments? When farmers take part in agri-environment schemes, will the budget be in place and will money be paid out on time to those involved?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The money that is going to agri- environment schemes is not being taken out of the pockets of farmers. This question arises quite often. Agri-environment schemes are taken up by the farming community, not by people outside that community, and are an alternative way of getting income at a time when farmers are going through difficulties. I do not accept that the money is coming out of the farmers’ pockets; for the most part, it is going back, albeit by a different route, into their pockets. My Department will endeavour to ensure that payments are made as soon as possible after the completion of all the paperwork that is, unfortunately, still necessary to keep everything in order.

Mr David Ford: The Minister quoted a significant figure for a projected increase in the organic aid scheme and a large figure for participation in the countryside management scheme in her response. Does she have complete confidence that her Department has enough funds to ensure that grants made under those schemes are fully paid?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Member will appreciate that funding is always a difficult issue. I can never guarantee that I will always get for my Department everything that I ask for. I will guarantee that there will be no want of trying, and I shall ensure that as much money as possible is made available for my Department in the comprehensive spending review. I can assure the Member that my bids are in and that I will be fighting very hard for them, because I recognise the need to support farmers in every way.

Beef Exports Ban

Mr Edwin Poots: 7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when a decision for the removal of the ban on beef exports will be made.
(AQO 91/00)

Ms Brid Rodgers: It is difficult to be definitive on the timescale. I have been working hard with Secretary of State Nick Brown and the other UK agriculture Ministers, with Joe Walsh in Dublin and with Commissioner Byrne in Brussels to keep this process moving. Those efforts allowed me to get the European Commission’s agreement to our consultation document, which was issued at the end of July 2000. The consultation period finishes at the end of this week and, based on the responses, I and the other UK agriculture Ministers will have to decide whether we should submit a formal case to the European Commission. I am hopeful that that will be the case, although I recognise the difficulties. We will then have to convince the European Commission that our proposal will work and follow that up by convincing the other 14 Member States. This will require scrutiny on a number of occasions at the Standing Veterinary Committee and will also require an inspection by the Commission, to verify that our controls are sufficient and in place. This will be far from easy and will take some time.
I would assure the Member that this is one of my top priorities, and I will keep the pressure on my Ministerial Colleagues and the Commissioner to move things on as quickly as possible. I am optimistic that we can get the ban relaxed, despite some difficult hurdles ahead. Realistically, it could be spring before exports start again.

Mr Edwin Poots: It is interesting that the prospect of getting the beef ban lifted is being pushed back to the springtime. Most farmers believed that the ban would have been lifted by this autumn. They believed that all the necessary paperwork would have been carried out and felt that they had delivered on their side of the bargain. It is now the Department’s job to deliver. There will be a lot of concern expressed that it is going to be pushed back to March 2001, and when we get to March 2001 it will be pushed back to October 2001. The ban has existed for four and a half years; it is time it was gone, and it is the Minister’s responsibility to get rid of it.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Perhaps the Member does not quite understand how Europe works. It is not just a matter of paperwork. As I have explained on a number of occasions, it was an extremely complex negotiation. In the first place, there had to be negotiations with the Commission on the proposals. The Member will also recognise that there had to be discussions with the other UK Ministers and consultation with the wider public and the consumers. It is not a straightforward issue of just getting the beef ban lifted. Incidentally, I have not been working on this for four and a half years; I have been working on this since last December with a three-and-a-half-month gap in the middle. It would have been much more helpful to the farming community if I could have continued my work right through without interruption.

Mr Speaker: Other Members want to put supplementary questions, but we have come to the end of the time for questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 19(7). At least two Members put new questions as supplementaries, and you asked the Minister if she wanted to answer them. My concern is that Ministers will take different views and, depending on the questions, will refuse to answer. Those two Members got to ask questions which they did not bother to put down in writing.

Mr Speaker: Members have the right to ask supplementary questions, and supplementaries ought to be related to the original question. As the Member is aware, I commented on the ingenuity and creativity of the Members. There is a degree of technicality about some of the questions in a number of the departmental areas, particularly, but not exclusively, in agriculture. I usually give Members the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they know a little more than I do on the technical questions. Sometimes, it is clear that they simply know a little bit more than I do about evading the Standing Orders. On this occasion, I compliment the Member for not only raising a point of order that was a point of order, but also his courtesy to the House in advising under which Standing Order he was raising it. I will regard myself as duly reproved and will try to provide the best guidance I can to the House on such supplementary questions as come forward.
With that self-reproof, perhaps we can move to questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Culture, Arts And Leisure

Mr Speaker: Question No 1, in the name of Mr Close, falls. Mr Close has advised us that he is ill and unable to be here today.

Queen’s Parade Development (Bangor)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 2. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he is aware of any proposals to provide a library for Bangor within the Queen’s Parade development plans.
(AQO 79/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I know that the library in Bangor is inadequate, and I understand that the South Eastern Education and Library Board is discussing the possibility of a new library with the developers of the Queen’s Parade complex. As yet, no proposal has been put to the Department.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am aware that that is the situation. I was asking simply so that I know that it will be a priority. Does the Minister agree that consideration of all library provision is vital, given that, when they were under the control of the education and library board, libraries were not developed as they should have been. I hope that that will not continue.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I agree with the thrust of the question. The Library Service has been seriously underfunded over the past 25 years of direct rule. One of the reasons for detaching it from the Department of Education was to allow it to stand on its own feet and fight its own corner in terms of chasing funding, and it would not be in competition with other Departments or other sectors in education. This is why it is within the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure.
In terms of provision for new libraries, as the Member is aware, capital developments depend on capital resources. I have inherited a capital baseline which is not sufficient to anounce any further capital developments at the moment. My Department is actively bidding for resources in the new spending round, and I hope to be successful. I certainly will be making every effort. As my Colleague Ms Rodgers said in relation to her Department, this is an area which has been underfunded. This is a tremendously valuable area where there is enormous potential to develop our society on a number of levels. I cannot make any announcements until the Executive and the Assembly Committee award extra funding.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that it is essential to pour resources into the Library Service to encourage greater use of its facilities, given the evidence of serious difficulties with literacy and numeracy, as various Committees have discovered in recent times?

Mr Speaker: I must ask Members to try to restrain themselves. There is a difference between the issue of a single library in one constituency and the general subject of adult literacy. I am not questioning the Minister’s literacy, but this issue is outside his responsibility. Members must stick to the question at hand.

Bilingual Signs

Mr John Fee: 3. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what advice he has given to other Departments in respect of the provision of bilingual signs in public places.
(AQO 106/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: All Departments are aware of the overarching commitment under the Belfast Agreement to promote understanding, tolerance and respect for linguistic diversity. They are also aware of the specific commitments contained in the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.

Mr John Fee: Does the Minister agree that a single coherent policy on multilingual issues would be extremely useful, given that it is such an important and potentially divisive matter? Does he further agree that in my constituency there are glaring examples of anomalies caused by the lack of a coherent policy? The South Armagh tourism initiative, which is funded by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Newry and Mourne District Council, the Tourist Board and the International Fund for Ireland, operates a signage programme. Where appropriate, it provides for signs bearing the names of streets, townlands, buildings, tourist facilities and houses to be mounted in English, Irish or both languages. In spite of this, the Roads Service of the Department for Regional Development will not mount bilingual traffic or direction signs. This is extraordinarily difficult to understand, bearing in mind that there are direction signs to Ardmore RUC station in Newry.

Mr Speaker: I have listened intently to the Member’s remarks, and I have two problems with them. First, I failed to hear the question. Secondly, he has referred to a cross-cutting issue, which is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department. The Minister may well have an opinion on the issue, but it is a cross-cutting subject which refers to a number of different Departments. It should therefore be addressed by means of a question to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mr John Fee: Surely the Minister will accept that his Department has the lead in cultural matters of this nature. Would he care to —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister may well wish to enlarge his empire in that way, but I fear that some of his Assembly and party colleagues would like to retain control in the Office of the First Minister and — particularly — the Deputy First Minister. This is outside the Minister’s responsibilities, and we must proceed.

Mr Barry McElduff: A Cheann Comhairle. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil rún ag an Roinn Talmhaíochta agus Forbartha Tuaithe comharthaí dhátheangacha ar an tSrath Bhán a thabhairt anuas in éadan thoil phobal an cheantair sin?
Is the Minister aware that the western division of the Roads Service is currently threatening legal proceedings against Fountain Street community association in Strabane for erecting Irish language direction signs?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am failing to make myself clear, even in English. The Member is raising a question in respect of the Department for Regional Development. That is not within this Minister’s area of reponsibility. I am being reasonably generous to Members in permitting them to speak at length. The Member must put a question to the Minister on his ministerial responsibilities only. He must not ask him for a view on another Minister’s responsibilities.

Mr Barry McElduff: With respect, I believe that question 3, posed by Mr Fee, is inviting the Minister to advise other Ministers on Irish language commitments, specifically those which fall under his brief. Will the Minister advise another Minister — in this case the Minister of the Department for Regional Development — to honour commitments made in the Good Friday Agreement to the Irish language, particularly with respect to the Fountain Street community association in Strabane?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member is aware that the United Kingdom has signed up to the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. In the Executive Committee last week, we enabled the First and Deputy First Ministers to write to the Foreign Secretary on that. The European Charter will therefore be implemented.
Part II of the charter deals with languages for the kingdom as a whole — Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Scots, as well as Irish and Ulster-Scots for our purposes. Part III identifies languages for specific action, recognises Irish as well as Scottish Gaelic and Welsh, and that will have consequences. My Department will certainly determine what advice is required to help other Departments determine what action will need to be taken as a consequence of the charter.
Under part III of the charter we are required to specify 35 provisions which are already under way. We have been able to specify 36; for 30 we have devolved responsibility, and six are excepted or reserved matters. The charter has made no change to the position on street signs. Departments are at liberty to use bilingual or trilingual versions of their name as they wish. The only exception is street names, which come under the jurisdiction of local councils as provided by the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
My Department is chairing an interdepartmental committee representing all the other Departments, and we are looking at what steps need to be taken. There will be consultation with the various Departments on factors such as appropriateness, demand, desire and resources, and the result of that consultation will be available early next year.

A Member: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not able to take a point of order during Question Time, but I will happily take it at the end. Since the House resumed, I have been advised that Mr Leslie is unwell and not able to be here to put his question. We therefore move to the next question.

Lesser-Used Languages

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 5. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what funding is available for training for lesser-used languages, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 96/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Money is available to the language body to promote projects relating to Irish and Ulster-Scots. These projects could include training. Groups who speak a lesser-used language may apply to various Departments for funding from mainstream programmes which may relate to training. Departmental funds are also available for staff training programmes which, where appropriate, could include language training.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: My question is not about Irish or Ulster-Scots. How much of that funding is available for training and development opportunities for sign language in Northern Ireland, considering that we only have four trained signers and there is a great need for more?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware of the exact amounts of money. All I can do is refer the Member to my answer that departmental funds are available for staff training programmes, which can include language training. They can also include training in the use of sign language. Departments are free to spend that money as they see fit.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The year 2001 has been designated as the year of languages. This would be an ideal opportunity to enhance and promote the Irish language in our schools and colleges throughout Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that we need to introduce each other’s culture into our primary schools in order that our children can learn about each other’s cultures?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am aware that 2001 has been designated as the year of language in Europe, and I agree that cultural diversity should be seen as a strength of our society and not as a weakness. I also agree with the spirit of his question and remarks. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is looking at ways to address and promote tolerance and respect for the diversity of culture in Northern Ireland.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Minister confirm that the Ulster-Scots language will be given equality and parity of funding with the Irish language, as regards training in the use of lesser-used languages?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I have addressed this matter for Mr Shannon before and am happy to do so again. The Boord o Ulster Scotch will receive indicative funding for the coming year of £1·3 million. This compares with £667,000 for the previous year, which, in itself, represents a five fold increase on the year before — £118,000. It is a matter for the Board of Ulster-Scots and a matter for the language body to determine staff training in Ulster-Scots. Ulster-Scots and the Board of Ulster-Scots are vibrant and when this organisation and board identifies a need, it looks to address that need and to find the funding.

Mr George Savage: During questions to the last Minister I waited patiently, but without avail, to ask my question. May I ask question No 4 on behalf of my Colleague Mr Leslie?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid not. It is not possible to ask questions on behalf of other Members, and that is very clear.

National Gallery for Art

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure what plans he has to create a national gallery for art in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 77/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: My Department is working closely with the management of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland to identify the support that will be required to realise the plans contained in the vision statement ‘Opening Horizons’. These plans include the creation of a museum of the creative arts that will serve as a national gallery for Northern Ireland.

Mr David Ford: I had hoped for a more detailed answer or, perhaps, news of co-operation between his Department and Belfast City Council. He will surely agree that the visual arts are badly served at present with one or two paintings stuck in odd corners of the Ulster Museum in an inappropriate way. Is it not time that we had something more specific, with times and details attached, in a statement from him on this issue?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: This is a need and a gap that the museum and the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland have recognised in ‘Opening Horizons’. Again, this is something they are hoping to move forward and address. A number of things will flow from that, not the least of which is the revenue consequences of provision.
I agree that the Ulster Museum does not begin to have the space to display the quality of paintings they have in their vaults. About 90% of their paintings never see the light of day despite the fact that the exhibitions might migrate. I am sure that the Member is aware that paintings by Turner, Gainsborough, Reynolds, John Lavery, William Connor, et cetera, are buried in the cellars of the Ulster Museum. Neither do we have the facilities to take travelling exhibitions. Currently, paintings by Monet and Rembrandt are migrating round Europe. We could pick those up if only we had the proper premises.
We are well aware of the requirement for facilities and resources and are looking at the issue, but there are revenue consequences and other important areas we have to look at, such as location. It is part of the plans and vision. I cannot give the Member a specific time frame until we move on to the next stage.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: This is another initiative in the Minister’s Department with the potential for job creation. In Enniskillen some weeks ago the Minister announced 70 jobs from the siting of the inland waterways body. What does the Minister have to say about the creation of jobs in respect of the national gallery? What does he have to say about the creation of 70 jobs in Enniskillen, given the depressing news from the town last week?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I sympathise with Mr Gallagher. My Colleague Sir Reg Empey is very much aware of the job losses in Enniskillen, and he is working extremely hard to address the problem. The fact that the headquarters of the inland waterways body will be sited in Enniskillen will create 70 jobs. I do not know what job opportunities will arise from the siting of national gallery. Its location is still to be determined, and, as I said to Mr Ford, we shall address the question in due course.

Mr Speaker: I must advise Members that speculation that there might at some point be a national gallery is not to be taken as a question on the development of the Fermanagh economy.

Mrs Joan Carson: I would not dream of doing anything like that for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. If the Minister were looking for a place to hang the nice pictures lying in the vaults of the Ulster Museum, would he not consider using the facilities in this beautiful Building? We have some very glaring, empty spots, and we could use some of the facilities in this House. Would he facilitate that?

Mr Speaker: I must advise the Member that that issue is properly a matter for the Assembly Commission and not for the Minister. He is, of course, quite at liberty to express a view, but the Member might do well to keep her powder dry, since the next set of questions is to the Assembly Commission.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: If it is the will of the House and the Assembly Commission, I shall certainly do what I can to support that wish. I very much agree that there is hanging space available in the Building, and if these works of art are lying in vaults, it seems a shame that they should not be on display here or, indeed, in a number of other buildings in Northern Ireland such as museums and libraries. We are looking at the issue.

Mr Speaker: I should perhaps point out that the hanging space to which the Minister referred was for pictures, not for Members.

Motorcycle Racing: Health and Safety Standards

Mr Ivan Davis: 7. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail the measures he has taken with regard to improving health and safety standards in the sport of motorcycle racing, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 97/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Prompted by the recent tragic events, the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland, in conjunction with Sports Councils both North and South, has recently formed an inter-centre safety commission, which has been charged with the responsibility of conducting a comprehensive risk assessment audit of all existing road race venues. The Sports Council is currently drawing up terms of reference, and a report detailing the commission’s findings will be available in early December 2000. I have asked that one of my officials be given an observer’s role in the commission to keep me apprised of ongoing progress.
I recently met representatives of the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland to explore ways in which my Department might lend its support to the inter-centre commission. My officials have also met with their counterparts in the Department for Regional Development and the Department of the Environment, and they have agreed to provide whatever assistance they can to the work of the commission. I shall consider what measures I can take when the commission’s report is available.

Mr Ivan Davis: While we are waiting for these reports will there be any indication of the probable cost of improving safety in this sport?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I cannot be specific about cost until we receive the report. The road racing season is now over, and the commission plans to work with diligence and speed over the winter to assess what must be done on each of the road racing circuits, afterwards looking at the feasibility of the work and the revenue consequences. My Department is certainly doing all it can to support them in those efforts.
At the same time, we have made resources available to employ a consultant, who is also looking at the four existing short circuit road racing tracks. As part of that we will also be looking at the feasibility of a dedicated, purpose-built new road racing circuit.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the statement made by the Minister on the steps his Department has taken to address the issue of motor sport safety. Does he agree that much more needs to be done? Will his Department take the lead by allocating funding towards a feasibility study for the entire motor sport industry, so that the entire sport can achieve its full potential? Also, will he advise the House of the name of the consultant appointed to look at the short circuit tracks?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: On the last part of the question, I cannot give the name of the consultant, as I do not know it.
We all share concern at the number of fatalities and serious injuries, especially in the past year. My task, from my Department’s view, is to ensure that risk is minimised as far as possible. This is, and always will be, a dangerous sport and the thing is to work to minimise the danger.
There are two parts to this sport (it has been described as two separate sports) — road racing and short circuit racing. Road racers describe their sport as totally different. A comparison has been made with the distinction between squash and tennis — racket games played with balls, but otherwise enormously different.
In taking this forward we are looking at ways of upgrading the four short-circuit tracks. We are looking at how we make existing road circuits safer. Work has been done and more needs to be done to allow the sport to thrive. This issue also affects other Departments. The organisers of the North West 200, the premier road race in the British Isles, outside the Isle of Man, cannot charge admission. They can charge admission to the Ulster grand prix but not the North West 200. If they could, bearing in mind that around 80,000 people regularly attend, they could produce a revenue stream that would allow them not only to upgrade that circuit but others too. That is another area that we are looking at.
We are also seeking advice on the provision of a purpose-built circuit. For that to be feasible, it would have to be financially self-sustaining and would have to cover not just motorbikes but also motor racing in general.
We are looking to see the results of these investigations, studies and enquiries coming to fruition early next year, so that the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland can determine its strategy for the future.

Mr Danny O'Connor: Does the Minister agree that it is not just about the condition of the roads but the fact that bikes are going much quicker than they ever did? It may be possible to fit some type of speed limiter to bikes to slow them down and increase road safety.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As regards road safety, I do not have the expertise to comment on whether bikes are going too fast. Certainly, there is the question of matching the skill of the rider to the circuits. Significant work has been done on all of the circuits to contribute to road safety. Chicanes have been introduced at all the venues, and these have slowed down motorbikes. That is one way of limiting speed. Against that you have to match the skill of the riders and their ability to decelerate to those speeds. I am not an expert on this; I am learning as I go along and taking advice. My role is to support the Motor Cycle Union of Ireland — the sport’s governing body — and help them to determine their strategy to minimise risk for everyone.

Mr George Savage: During the past year the cream of the motorcycle industry has been taken away from us.
Has any consideration been given to the formation of a sports stadium in Northern Ireland? Does the Minister have any plans for that?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I said that, as part of the review, the consultants who were assisting the Motorcycle Union of Ireland and the inter-centre safety commission will be looking at the feasibility of a new purpose-built, short-circuit track. They will also be looking at the existing short circuits but more importantly, the existing road circuits.

Mr Speaker: Many Members are interested in this question — particularly in the light of recent events— but we have spent longer on it than on any of the others. In fairness, we need to get through the questions that have been tabled, rather than take more supplementaries.

Irish Language

Mr Barry McElduff: 8. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to detail what funding has been made available to promote the Irish language since 2 December 1999.
(AQO 87/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The North/South language implementation body was established on devolution, with two separate parts, the Irish Language Agency and the Ulster-Scots Agency. Its functions include the promotion of the Irish language. Indicative funding of £7·2 million sterling is available to the Irish Language Agency, Foras na Gaeilge, in the start-up year of operation for the promotion of Irish. Northern Ireland will provide £1·8 million sterling of that. Funding is also available from mainstream funding programmes for objectives other than promotional, providing applicants meet the criteria. In 2000-01, indicative funding of £11·420 million will be available to the body, and Northern Ireland will provide £3·5 million of this. The Board of Ulster-Scots will receive £1·3 million and Foras na Gaeilge will receive £10·12 million.

Mr Barry McElduff: Is í an cheist atá agam ná: cad iad na himpleachtaí don fhostaíocht ar an talamh, mar a déarfá?
In recognition of the central importance of the Irish language in the Good Friday Agreement, can the Minister detail if this has led to project sustainability and job creation on the ground?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I do not have that sort of depth of detail in terms of the job creation that has been attached to the promotion of the Irish language since devolution. As I said, there is a cross-border implementation body with two parts. One part looks after Irish language — Foras na Gaeilge, which has its own funding. The number of people it employs pretty well equates with pre-devolution and post devolution, and again, I cannot be specific on that.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the fact that that funding is available, has the Department considered making scholarships available for school pupils who wish to attend residential Gaeltacht courses during the summer holidays?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not competent to answer that question. It is more appropriate for the cross-border implementation body. I will put it to them on the Member’s behalf and attempt to discover the detail. However, I am not aware of their offering scholarships at the moment.

Maze Prison Site

Mr Edwin Poots: 9. asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure if he has any plans to consider the viability of utilising the Maze Prison site as a centre for sporting excellence.
(AQO 90/00)

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The future of the Maze Prison site is a matter in the first instance for the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that the facility will be retained by the Prison Service for the next two to three years. In these circumstances it would be premature for me to consider whether it could be used as a centre for sporting excellence, although I am aware that there has been previous speculation about the use of the site.

Mr Edwin Poots: This area is particularly level, covers 300 acres, and is easily accessible from the M1 motorway and the A1 dual carriageway. Does the Minister agree that this offers a spectacular opportunity to develop a centre of sporting excellence? Perhaps we could come up with some new sports like the 100-metre tunnel dig and the fence vaulting.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions to the Minister is now up. We will have to ask the Minister to write to the Member with his considered views on the suggestions.

Assembly Commission

Lesser-known Languages

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 1. asked the Assembly Commission to detail any plans for future training programmes relating to lesser-known languages and to make a statement.
(AQO 102/00)

Rev Robert Coulter: In relation to training, a prime responsibility of the Assembly Commission is to ensure that staff of the Assembly Secretariat receive the appropriate training to carry out their duties professionally. At this stage the Commission has no plans to provide training programmes relating to lesser- known languages. In those instances when elected Members address the Assembly in either Irish or Ulster-Scots, translation facilities are available to the Speaker and to the Clerks at the Table.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What facilities are in place for deaf people? In order to ensure that the facilities of the Chamber are fully inclusive, we must make sure that deaf people visiting it are able to get access to the debate on the Floor.

Rev Robert Coulter: The Commission has commissioned a survey of the Building. This will meet the needs of disabled people, including people with visual impairments and those with hearing difficulties. The Commission has arranged for Doorkeepers to be trained to deal with visitors who have physical and visual impairments. Should the need arise, the Commission will consider any further requirements.

Parliament Buildings: Flags

Mr Roy Beggs: 2. asked the Assembly Commission to detail its policy on the flying of flags in Parliament Buildings.
(AQO 98/00)

Rev Robert Coulter: So far, the policy of the Assembly Commission has been to fly the Union flag on, but not inside, Parliament Buildings. It is helpful to reflect on the background to this issue. During the shadow period the Commission operated under the direction of the Secretary of State. Since devolution it has continued to follow the existing practice of flying the Union flag over Government buildings.
On Friday 2 June 2000, the Assembly Commission discussed the issue and resolved that the flags issue was a political matter best handled by the Assembly. It was agreed that the Commission would continue to operate according to existing arrangements, until otherwise directed by the Assembly.
We had the flags debate on 6 June. It provided no further direction to the Commission. We now have the Flags Order. This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on the flying of the Union Flag on Government buildings. An Ad Hoc Committee has recently been appointed and is considering the draft regulations. However, the regulations will only cover specified Government buildings. Parliament Buildings can not be included in the schedule to the flag regulations. The Assembly has to decide its policy on flying the Union flag on Parliament Buildings.

Mr Roy Beggs: What is the Assembly Commission’s policy on flying the United Kingdom national flag on the Assembly building on designated days? Will the flag continue to fly? Given that the matter is not included in the Secretary of State’s draft proposals, can the Commission confirm that there are no proposals to change —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s question is out of order under the anticipation rule. The Assembly has already set up an Ad Hoc Committee to prepare a report to the Secretary of State. The question is being asked in anticipation of a report that is already being prepared by the Assembly.

Mr Roy Beggs: Has the Assembly Commission any proposals to change the policy?

Mr Speaker: That part of the question is acceptable.

Rev Robert Coulter: The simple answer is no — not until the Assembly decides a policy.

Mr Alex Attwood: I anticipate your ruling on this, Mr Speaker. Can the member of the Commission indicate that in the event that the Assembly Commission further considers the displaying of flags, it will take into account and have due regard to that which is outlined in the Good Friday Agreement — namely, that
"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities"?
Can he confirm that that will inform any future Commission view?

Mr Speaker: Mr Coulter may wish to reply in regard to this. In so far as a legal opinion has been requested, that, of course, is out of order. It is not possible to ask for legal opinions. However, in respect of what the Commission may choose to do, the Commission representative may wish to reply.

Rev Robert Coulter: As I have already stated, the Commission will take its direction in these matters from the Assembly.

Mr Conor Murphy: Given that the practice of flying flags on this Building was previously under the instructions of the Secretary of State, may I ask the Assembly Commission on what basis the decision was taken to continue that practice after the shadow period.

Rev Robert Coulter: The Assembly Commission will follow directions, as we have been doing up to the present moment and will continue to fly the flag on the designated days.

North/South Ministerial Council: Second Plenary Meeting

Mr Seamus Mallon: I wish to make a statement on the second plenary meeting of the North/ South Ministerial Council on behalf of those Ministers who attended the meeting, which was held on Tuesday 26 September in Dublin Castle. The 10 Ministers notified to the Assembly participated in the meeting.
Satisfaction was expressed with the level of progress to date, particularly with the progress made in setting in train a substantial programme of work in respect of the six North/South implementation bodies and the six agreed areas for co-operation.
Since the inaugural plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh last December it has met 13 times in sectoral format. The council looked forward to making further significant progress in the various sectoral councils in the coming months. It placed particular importance on the forthcoming establishment of the new tourism company, which will have the responsibility for the marketing overseas of the island of Ireland as a tourist destination.
An agreed schedule of sectoral meetings is to take place in the autumn, including a first meeting in the transport sector. The First Minister and I are determined that all aspects of work identified in both the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will be carried forward. It is also anticipated that the council will meet by agreement in institutional format before the next plenary.
Procedures for recruiting the chief executives of a number of implementation bodies were agreed as were the terms and conditions associated with these appointments and the conditions of service for staff generally employed by the implementation bodies.
It was also agreed that a study would be initiated on an independent North/South consultative forum. This meets the terms set out in the Good Friday Agreement, strand two, paragraph 19. A report on the outcome to the study will come forward to the next meeting of the plenary.
The agenda for government published by the Northern Ireland Executive Committee on 29 June 2000 identified actions to support North/South development, including the need to take action to remove barriers to living and/or working North and South.
In this context, the Irish Government agreed to co-operate with the Northern Ireland Executive Committee in taking forward this study through a steering group of officials, North and South, on the obstacles to mobility. That co-operation will include sharing the costs of the study.
On the issue of competitiveness, there was a useful exchange of views between Ministers from both North and South. It was agreed that further consideration would be given to an Irish Government paper on enhancing competitiveness of the two economies by the North/South Ministerial Council, in its trade and business development format, at its next meeting on 27 October, with a view to reporting to the next plenary meeting.
The council agreed that its next meeting in plenary format would be held in Northern Ireland in March 2001. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the statement that was circulated to Members wrongly gave the date of the next plenary as March 2000 instead of March 2001. I take pleasure in putting the record right.
A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Library.

Mr Derek Hussey: First, I will comment on the nomination of Ministers. It may seem strange coming from myself, but to keep the situation proper all Ministers in this body should have been nominated. As to whether they would choose to attend is another matter, but they all should have been nominated.
Paragraph 5 of the Deputy First Minister’s statement tells us about the marketing of the island as a tourism destination, and paragraph nine mentions the sharing of costs. In paragraph 7 of the joint communique issued on 26 September, under the heading "Budgetary process", the apportionment of the moneys involved is given. The Government of the Republic are contributing £37 million sterling and the Executive here are contributing £11 million. In paragraph 9, under the heading "Obstacles to cross border mobility", the communique states that the costs will be "shared equally between the two Administrations".
Should the figure for apportionment not be similar to that mentioned in the budgetary process, rather than being an equal sharing of costs on any studies being carried out by this body?

Mr Speaker: Before the Deputy First Minister replies, I must remind the Member that he made a statement at the start of his comments. This is an opportunity to ask questions only, so I ask Members to refrain from using it to make statements.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The DUP Ministers have not attended meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council despite the fact that the holding of a ministerial office should involve meeting all responsibilities involved. It is interesting that details supplied by their Departments confirm that DUP Ministers have not yet met their ministerial counterparts from England, Scotland or Wales. Looking at the DUP attitude to ministerial office, one could say that the point of view that they hold is truly "ourselves alone".
In relation to the second part of the Member’s question, these are both studies at this stage. They have been agreed as studies, and they will be of great benefit to people, both North and South, especially those in border areas. I consider that there is the right balance in terms of the financing of those studies. Of course, the real debate will come when those studies start to present proposals. I have no doubt that then those budgetary matters will be under great scrutiny, both here and elsewhere.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. I want to concentrate on transport. Those of us who live in border constituencies have long wished for the day when there would be meaningful co-operation between the North and South on issues such as roads. I welcome the fact that there is going to be a special meeting on the transport sector. How does the Deputy First Minister envisage that this will take place given that the Minister for Regional Development has so far refused to submit a plan to the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is proposed to schedule a meeting in the second half of November. The First Minister and I will be asking the Minister for Regional Development to meet the responsibilities of ministerial office, and we shall take responsibility for moving the issue forward in the absence of his co-operation. Transport is an important sector of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. We want to ensure that progress is made in both institutions, and we will do so by representing the Northern Ireland Executive, if necessary.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Deputy First Minister said that he was looking forward to his meeting in March 2001. Of course, we, on this side of the House, hope that that meeting will never take place. Can the Deputy First Minister detail the cost to the Northern Ireland Administration of travel by Ministers and officials to Dublin for that meeting. Does he accept that there is growing public disquiet at the astronomical cost associated with the travel to such meetings? The recent visit to America by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had a price tag of almost £50,000.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. The Irish Government met all the costs and are meeting all of the costs of the plenary, apart from the time and travel costs of Northern Ireland Ministers and their support staff. Northern Ireland will meet all of the costs, apart from the costs of Irish Ministers and their support staff, for the plenary planned for next March.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. Perhaps it indicates that the administration of the North/South Ministerial Council is well under way. However, I ask him to take notice of the requirement for inclusiveness in the operation of such bodies. An agreed schedule of sectoral meetings has been announced by the Deputy First Minister. Will he give an undertaking that he will give to the Assembly, or at least the relevant Committee, information on the agendas for each of those sectoral meetings before they take place? It may be difficult for that to be done before the transport sector meets, in view of the unwillingness of some Ministers to participate.
The Deputy First Minister highlighted paragraph 19 of Strand Two of the agreement which deals with what we might call the North/South consultative forum. However, I draw his attention to paragraph 18, which I read as coming before paragraph 19:
"The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum".
What is being done to increase the inclusiveness of the North/South meetings beyond the Executive, or certain members of the Executive, to include all those Members who wish to participate in developing matters of mutual interest?

Mr Seamus Mallon: We wish to give as much information prior to sectoral meetings as we possibly can. I am sure that the Assemblyman will agree that sometimes it is very difficult, if not impossible, due to time constraints. I understand that a meeting of the British-Irish Council is taking place today and a report will be made on that. However, I assure the Member that the First Minister and I will do everything that we can to give that information.
On the consultative forum, the Member is right — paragraph 18 does come before paragraph 19. The Member refers to the inter-parliamentary aspect of it. As one of the founder members of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, I remind the Member that it is a parliamentary body and it is a matter for the Assembly, the Oireachtas and the Westminster Parliament. I note with some satisfaction that a meeting of that inter-parliamentary body is to take place, or has taken place, in Galway. The Assembly has nominated people to attend and I welcome that. I also welcome the study. We can replicate the expectations that we have for the CivicForum in the North in the consultative forum North and South.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the positive outcome of the North/South Ministerial Council plenary session. I am particularly interested in the tourism company because it is to be based in Coleraine, which is in the Minister for Regional Development’s constituency. Will the Deputy First Minister tell us more about the remit and timetable for this body, which is critical to the development of tourism internationally?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I note the Member’s interest in this body. The tourism company will be responsible for marketing the island of Ireland as a tourist destination. It will also provide marketing and promotional services to the two tourist boards. A publicly owned company will be established by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte to provide international tourism marketing programmes and information on the island of Ireland as a tourist destination, reflecting the diverse traditions, forms of cultural expression and identities in the island. Ministers and officials have been discussing the future arrangements for the company with a view to decisions being taken at the NSMC tourism sectoral meeting scheduled for 27October2000.

Mr Edwin Poots: In the absence of the Regional Development Minister, the Deputy First Minister could seek advice from the well-known West Belfast MLA who is an expert on motability. Are the Irish Government satisfied that 13sectoral meetings have taken place? Are they satisfied with the level of participation by Unionist Ministers?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Regrettably, I cannot answer on behalf of the Irish Government, but with regard to the Executive, every Minister who has attended sectoral meetings and meetings of the implementation bodies has performed satisfactorily. Things are progressing harmoniously. We should recognise that when we collectively, as a political process, undertake these types of meetings and the type of problems involved in them, we do it well. On behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, I would like to go on record as saying that. As for the IrishGovernment, the Member has read the communiqué, in which both Governments state their satisfaction clearly.

Mr Peter Weir: I note in the statement that reference is made to two independent studies, one dealing with the independent North/South consultative forum and the second dealing with mobility. What budget has been allocated to these two studies? When is the mobility study due to report? There is a reference to when the first study on the independent North/South consultative forum is due to report. Thirdly, will the Deputy First Minister give an assurance that when those reports are completed they will be made available to the House?

Mr Seamus Mallon: First, we will subject them to debate and scrutiny and seek agreement in the Chamber, because neither of these studies is a matter for anybody in isolation. I understand from the question that the Member recognises the validity of both studies. In the mobility study we are seeking to ensure that for citizens North and South, the obstacles to mobility can be identified and removed. Those of us who live in border areas know the problems that exist and we have to try and find ways of reducing those obstacles.
Such areas include health, housing, education, childcare, taxation, social security, pensions, vehicle registrations, telephones and banking — I could go on for some time. In this context, we have asked for an examination of procedures in other European border regions. The North/South joint secretariat will support a steering group of officials from OFMDFM and DFA to carry out the study.

Mr Peter Weir: The specific question I asked was what budget is allocated to each of these, and it was not answered.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I refer the Member to the last part of my response. The North/South Ministerial Council’s joint secretariat will support a steering group of officials from OFMDFM and DFA in carrying out this study, and there will be expenditure accruing to all of those.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I welcome the statement. Will the Deputy First Minister outline what areas of the economy the competitiveness study will encompass, and will he ensure that spatial and regional planning for areas such as the north-west are included?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Both North and South share the objective of developing and sustaining a competitive economy in the face of increasingly wider competition in the rapidly evolving global economy. We feel, therefore, that the time is right to focus on how economic co-operation can enhance competitiveness in both parts of the island. At the North South Ministerial Council, the two Governments, North and South, by mutual agreement and for mutual benefit, asked the sectoral meeting of the trade and business development format to consider the matter and bring forward recommendations for specific action to our next meeting early next year. Some of the crucial areas to be addressed are physical infrastructure to secure energy at an affordable cost, a responsive skill and labour supply, the provision of advanced telecommunications, key components of innovation, research and development investment, supply of venture capital, technology foresight initiatives and regional and spacial planning.
Again, the peripherality of areas which are furthest from either Belfast or Dublin must be considered in all of our forward planning. They affect all of us, and as someone who represents a border constituency, I know that those elements are needed. We should complete this study, discuss it and then try to deal with people living in those border areas.

Mr Jim Shannon: I will ask the Deputy First Minister questions on the new tourism company, which he refers to in paragraph 5. The Deputy First Minister has already affirmed that the new tourism company will be located in Coleraine. Can he assure us about where the strategy and the policy for tourism will come from? Will it come from Coleraine or elsewhere? How many staff from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will be among the core staff to be located at Coleraine? Will there be equality in the promotion of tourist destinations in Northern Ireland — for example, Strangford Lough? What guarantees can be included in the new tourism company to ensure that Northern Ireland tourism can be promoted suitably, fairly and positively? What will be the breakdown for finance for the promotion of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Staffing will be the responsibility of the Minister concerned. I cannot, at present, indicate those figures, but I will write to the Member to indicate what the Minister dealing with this area will be deciding. I imagine that everyone involved in this company will ensure that Northern Ireland tourist destinations are promoted fairly. Through the Minister representing this Executive and through the new tourist company, we will be insisting that Northern Ireland tourist destinations receive the attention they require and that the North of Ireland tourism will be properly and fairly promoted.
It is not possible to think of tourism in terms of one destination. The worldwide tourism pattern is that people go from place to place. The more tourist companies promoting the whole of the island of Ireland, the more people will come to the North of Ireland. When they do, we will convince them by our services, facilities, and all of the tourist factors we have, that this is a place that they will come back to. That is the essence of tourism.

Mr Alan McFarland: In light of discussions on the action needed to remove barriers, what mention was made of the difficulty many in Northern Ireland in seeking jobs in the Republic, if they do not have the Irish language?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for the question. This is one matter that was not discussed formally at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting — it was discussed informally. The regulations in the Republic of Ireland have now changed so that there is a five-year period within which someone appointed within the educational sector would have the opportunity to make themselves sufficiently proficient in the Irish language. It is essential that teachers from the North of Ireland do teach in the Republic of Ireland and vice versa.
We should ensure that there are no barriers to that type of communication. Ultimately, whatever the language, communication is about dealing with new situations and different structures in both educational systems and with the young people concerned.

Prof Monica McWilliams: What difficulties does the Minister foresee in informing the Assembly about the agenda of forthcoming meetings? I note that the Minister of Education had to retract a comment he made before the Assembly in response to the Chairperson of the Education Committee’s question if he would be consulting him about the sectoral meeting in that area. Initially, he said he saw no difficulties in doing that, but then he had to report to the Assembly that he could not do that. Does the same apply to the North/South Ministerial Council meetings? Although I receive information on what matters might arise at the next plenary meeting and the report of the two studies that had been commissioned, I am not aware of the form of the agenda. Four parties with Ministers on the Executive Committee would be well informed of what happens at these plenary meetings, but the rest of the Assembly would occasionally like to be proactive rather than reactive to what happens at these meetings.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I stated that the agenda, along with other information, should be circulated to Members in advance. I take the point she makes, which has been made previously. The more communication there is within the Assembly, and between Ministers and the Assembly, the better it will be for the entire process. I will take that question on board and we will look at it very carefully.
I do not think there is a legalistic reason for why this is the case or why not, or a definition of Minister may or may not do. In relation to the sectoral meetings, there are areas of confidentiality in relation to their discussions. I can think of at least one at the moment which could be of enormous benefit to the North of Ireland and I am quite sure the Assembly Member would agree that it should not be dealt with in public, on account of related commercial aspects.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Deputy First Minister refers, in his report, to the issue of competitiveness. It states that there was a useful exchange of views between Ministers from North and South. Did that exchange impinge, in any way, on the recent fuel crisis? And did the representatives from Northern Ireland make any case for improved surveillance, by the Republic of Ireland Government, of the enormous amount of illegal fuel — estimated to be 30% of all fuel used in Northern Ireland — which is passing across the border into the North? While hauliers in the North, as the Deputy First Minister will be aware, have to tighten their belts and compete with the relative rates of duty, they ought not to have to compete also with illegally imported fuel, about which the Republic appears to be doing absolutely nothing.

Mr Seamus Mallon: This matter was discussed. It has been raised by the First Minister and myself at every opportunity — at the first plenary session of the British-Irish Council and, separately, with the Treasury in London. The reality is — the Member is correct — that it is the rates of duty which we have got to try to deal with. That is the core element of the problem. I agree with him that those who are selling fuel in the North of Ireland are being disadvantaged on a daily basis. As the Member knows, this is a matter that does not fall within the competence of the Assembly or the Executive, but he can be assured that it will be raised at every opportunity with those who do have that responsibility.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Deputy First Minister should answer the real questions, which he has avoided.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I also welcome the statement from the Deputy First Minister, in particular with regard to the mobility study. I ask for his assurance that it will be a meaningful study to the people on the ground and, if possible, could he give us an outline of the timetable of this study?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The study has to be meaningful because these problems are meaningful to people who live either north or south of the border. I listed some of the areas, and I know from personal experience of dealing with constituency issues that these problems can be huge. The difficulty is that you are dealing with two jurisdictions and, if I may say so, two sets of bureaucracy. It is not always easy to resolve these factors.
It has to be meaningful, and a study on its own is not enough. A study should result in proposals, which should, and will come from the study group to the North/South Ministerial Council and to the Assembly. When they do come, it will be for us to judge if they are worthwhile, meaningful and able to contribute to the lives of the people we represent. I believe that on those three counts they will.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Can the Deputy First Minister please give us the figures that were asked for earlier on to the cost of the two studies mentioned in this statement. It is a straightforward question. Perhaps he could give us a straightforward answer.
Secondly, can he confirm that decisions of the North/ South Ministerial Council, whether in plenary or in sectoral form, are incapable of being overturned by challenge in the Assembly.
Thirdly, can he, in the absence of the First Minister — I notice that the Deputy First Minister is on his own today — shed any light on the other key aspect of last Tuesday’s events? I know that it was not part of the North/South Ministerial Council meetings specifically, but I refer to the First Minister going cap in hand to ask favours on Patten from the Dublin Prime Minister. I wonder did the Deputy First Minister pick up anything in the corridors on that particular issue? It dominated the news reports, as he may be aware, to the exclusion of reports on the North/South Ministerial Council.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Assemblyman is quite right. The focus should have been on the North/ South Ministerial Council. I was not behind the door in making that point. The First Minister and the Taoiseach decided, in their wisdom, to have that meeting on the same day. So be it.
As for the second part of the question, at this point I will not be able to answer it. I will write to the Member and give him that factual information as soon as it is available to me.

Mr Nigel Dodds: There was another aspect to that question, relating to the ability of this Assembly to either confirm or overturn the decisions of the Council.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I apologise for omitting that. The matters will be agreed, and have to be agreed, within the Executive. That is part of the agreement. Executive business is subject to the Assembly. That is the way in which the Assembly’s opinion can be given. The Member is asking a very direct question: can this Assembly overturn a decision made by a Minister, either in sectoral format or in implementation form? I think reference should be made to that through Executive decision. I would welcome him to that Executive.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are no further questions on the statement of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

Local Community Nursing

Rev Robert Coulter: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that appropriate funding for local community nursing is available for those patients in acute hospitals for whom nursing care is appropriate, so that bed blocking is removed and consultants can treat additional patients currently on waiting lists.
I bring this motion before the House because of the Health Department’s figures on waiting lists for acute hospitals. At present, nearly 50,000 people are waiting for admission to hospital. Moreover, those waiting in excess of 18 months — 12 months for cardiac surgery — now number 6,009 or just over 12% of the total waiting.
The thought of 50,000 people in our community knowing that they require surgery or hospital attention waiting day after day, hoping to get a call to go in to hospital, and day after day being disappointed, fills me with sadness. I ask Members to imagine being told that you have a health problem that requires cardiac surgery. You wait a month, six months, a year, and still there is no call for treatment. Imagine your mental condition as you wonder if, when the call does come, it will be too late. Imagine the agony of worrying, which you endure day by day and the stress on your family. If you have seriously imagined yourself in that position, can you say that the figure of 50,000 people waiting for hospitalisation is acceptable?
If there is one aspect of health provision in our Province that needs to take priority over all other, it is the current problem of bed blocking and its effect on the unacceptably high numbers on hospital waiting lists. The Minister needs to give this democratically elected House her utmost assurance that she will do all in her power to avoid falling into the trap of centralisation created by previous Health Ministers in Northern Ireland.
The trend has been to close the local hospitals and to create acute area hospitals. The arguments for such a centralised strategy are convincing, and I agree that the people of Northern Ireland do not mind travelling long distances to get the acute surgery they require, nor do their loved ones mind travelling to see them in those circumstances. It is waiting for the acute treatment, and the aftercare, that is the problem.

Mr George Savage: Let me reinforce Mr Coulter’s point. The situation in my constituency relating to Craigavon Area Hospital has now reached a critical level. I understand that very little elective surgery is now being carried out at that hospital, and that there are now over 5,000 patients waiting for treatment.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not appropriate for a Member to intervene during the opening speech of a debate to make a prepared statement in regard to it. If the Member so wishes, he is perfectly entitled to speak in the debate. He can make his point then. We are only at the beginning of the debate. Because of the ministerial statement, our timing has been cut short for today. However, there is no reason why this debate should not continue tomorrow morning as a considerable number of Members want to speak. We have the choice of either cutting Members very short — which I am hesitant to do on a matter on which they quite clearly feel strongly — or continuing the debate tomorrow. I would prefer to continue the debate tomorrow to give all Members the chance to speak. Thus they would not feel compelled to make interventions which are rather close to the wind in terms of the Standing Orders. I ask the Member to restrain himself. If he wishes to speak he should put his name down. The debate will continue tomorrow morning.

Rev Robert Coulter: I was saying that the real problem is waiting for the acute treatment, and the aftercare.
When the plan for hospital closures was devised in the 1980s and 1990s, and the services of many others reduced, not enough planning or provision was made for aftercare. Today people can be discharged from acute care much earlier than in the past, but many require 24-hour professional nursing help for days or even weeks afterwards. If this nursing care is not available at home or in the community the patient must be kept in hospital, thereby blocking a bed for another person on the waiting list. In this respect, the Minister needs to give serious consideration to the development of a network of community convalescent hospitals throughout the Province in the main centres of population. There is a pressing need to review the level of post-operation care facilities in their local areas.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Very recently, I talked to a general practitioner about the problem of waiting lists, and I am sure that my comments will be reinforced by the Chairperson of the Health Committee. An extension of the problem emerged during that conversation. The burden on the GPs, which is already great, is amplified. Let me explain. A patient goes to his GP, and is referred to a consultant. The consultant is unable to take the patient into hospital because there are no beds available. The patient returns again and again to his GP, asking when he will be dealt with. The GP can give him no assurance, and a tension is created between the patient and his GP, with the patient blaming the GP for negligence. There is also the loss of time experienced by the GP’s support staff in answering continual telephone calls, and by the GP himself, as well as the cost, in many cases, of interim medicine. It is vital that the Minister adopts the core principle that when people are sick they should receive the correct treatment in the correct place, delivered by the correct people at the correct time.
The borough of Ballymena is an example of the situation which may arise, and may already have arisen, in many towns across Northern Ireland. When the Waveney Hospital was closed, the people of Ballymena were left without even a minor accident and emergency facility. People with, for example, a cut finger must go to the acute area hospital in Antrim.
If the injury is minor, patients will sit for four or more hours, waiting for attention. Ballymena urgently requires a new purpose-built community convalescent support hospital, in which minor accident cases can be treated by properly trained nursing staff. If the accident was more serious, or if the nurse is in doubt, there should be no hesitation, in this age of tele-medicine, in getting in touch rapidly with the relevant specialist at the acute hospital.
In 1998 the Northern Ireland Health Minister, John McFall, declared that none of Northern Ireland’s hospitals would close and that local hospitals would be the cornerstone of the new hospital service. It may be argued, of course, that we now have a new administration and that politicians and civil servants who were not elected by and not accountable to the people of Ulster made those old decisions. We now have a Minister who is accountable, not just to the people of west Belfast but to all the people of Northern Ireland, and civil servants who are accountable to the democratically elected Members of the Assembly.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that she will cut waiting lists: she must outline precisely how she proposes to do that. She must not just say how much money will be set aside to meet the need.
We might also ask how long it will take to remedy the defects. I remind the Minister that media headlines have been warning the community that Ulster’s hospitals are already £20million in the red and that they face a further £20 million-plus overspend in the coming year. Given these grim statistics, I am sure that Members will agree that the Minister and her Department are faced with serious decisions in the days ahead. Perhaps the Minister could begin by cutting the fat cat bureaucracy in the health trusts. The reported payments of around £1million in so-called golden handshakes are downright scandalous. How many acute beds could have been made available for that cash? The Minister must move with haste to ensure that such a haemorrhage of taxpayers’ money does not happen, either now or ever again. She can demonstrate her commitment to the people of Northern Ireland by ending the fat cat syndrome in our health service.
Similarly, in eradicating the bureaucratic duplication in our health service, it will be necessary for the Minister to ensure that an effective health policy is devised and implemented and that it is lean and efficient. Much -needed finance for patients’ requirements can be obtained by eliminating some of the levels of bureaucracy in our health service. Practically speaking, this may be achieved by scrapping the administrative duplication of the health boards and health trusts. We now have our own Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Do we need those fat layers of expensive administration? Do we need four boards, 19 trusts and I do not know how many layers of administration underneath all of that? The Minister should ensure that everyone, and in particular the elderly, regardless of race, class, creed or wealth, should have an automatic right to proper medical access. It has been a disgrace to this generation that so many elderly people have had to sell their possessions and give up their savings to qualify and pay for such care. They have paid their health contribution all their working lives and now they are being made to pay again for a service that they were assured would be free.
Do we not feel somewhat ashamed that we have not acted before now to rectify that wrong? It is time we recognised that, just as our education system is being threatened by the American-style pay-as-you-learn mentality, we must not allow our health system to adopt a pay-as-you-heal approach to the needs of our people.
The guiding ethic of funding for local community nursing must be health first, not wealth. The elderly — indeed, every section of society — should be able to look on our Health Service as a welcome provider, not a bureaucratic piranha. In view of the seriousness of the situation and the great number of people affected, I call upon the Minister and every Member to support the motion. It is something which affects, or which will affect, us all sooner or later.
A short time ago I received a call from a constituent in North Antrim. The young woman had weighed 18 stone and, with great willpower, reduced her weight to nine stone. However, this created a problem. The abdominal skin was too slack and was hanging in an uncomfortably large pouch. Her GP referred her to a consultant, and she has been waiting for over a year for an interview. She does not know when she will be called, and her doctor can give her no further information. She cannot go to social functions, she cannot purchase new clothes to suit her slim form, and she is now suffering from depression as a result of the delay in getting a minor operation. On top of all that, her family is suffering because of her suffering. The whole system is wrong and needs to be reviewed.
I beg the Minister to set in motion a review group, accountable to the House and containing Members of the House, to look at the problem of bed blocking and the difficulties which arise from it. I hope that every Member will agree that such an initiative should be progressed in the immediate future; I am sure that all of the 50,000 people on the waiting lists for our hospitals will plead with us to do so.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome and support this motion. Having worked, as a nurse, in the assessment of domiciliary care, I recognise the urgent need for the debate. It is particularly timely because today is the first working day of the new human rights legislation. From now on, citizens will have rights, not just liberties. All public bodies, including acute and community health trusts, will be required to ensure that equality of opportunity is central to their work. Patients will be able to challenge decisions in court if they believe that their basic human rights have been breached.
I do not like the term "bed blocking" as it can conjure up a picture of an elderly person taking up a really sick person’s bed. We do not have properly resourced care in the community. The people who require care when discharged from hospital cannot get it. Primary care in the community must be fully resourced and carried out by well-trained professionals. The financial resources are not in place to provide adequate care for patients — especially elderly patients in the community.
I acknowledge that there are many conflicting priorities for the Health Minister’s budget, but we need a hierarchy of priorities. We need to know the Minister’s view on this. We are all aware that we have a rising elderly population; in the next 20 years one in four of our population will be classed as elderly. In South Belfast we have the highest proportion of elderly people in Northern Ireland. We urgently need an assurance from the Minister that finance for care in the community will be ring-fenced, because it has a history of losing out to the acute sector. Care in the community can no longer be the poor relation — we must have an equitable distribution of funding. We know that most health care takes place in the community, and a more equitable relationship and better communication with the acute hospitals would give more efficient service all round. It is also important to recognise the amount of voluntary care provided in the community, particularly that provided for elderly and frail relatives by family members.
We are only beginning to recognise the huge contribution they make, and we must look at ways of recompensing them adequately for the care they have provided. I welcome an innovative pilot scheme conducted by the South and East Trust, which guarantees an eight-week period of domiciliary care for patients suffering from chronic illness who have high levels of dependency.
This means, for example, that patients who have suffered a stroke can have an eight-week period to decide whether they want to stay at home or go into a nursing home. Patients are extremely vulnerable and may not make appropriate decisions when they are very ill.
The Government did not fully accept the Royal Commission’s main recommendations there on long-term care. Differentiating between nursing and personal care is not sustainable. If an elderly person is ill in hospital with cancer, all care is free at the point of delivery, and rightly so. Why should it be any different for patients who require care in the community?
We must ask ourselves whether it was a wise decision to close most of our statutory homes. If we are going to use nursing homes for interim care, for care between hospital and returning to the community, they must be geared towards the rehabilitation of patients and the encouragement of independence. This would entail a lot of specific training as well as a culture change, but if we are to start to meet the challenge of caring for a large elderly population, we must start thinking creatively around this.
Private homes must also be well monitored to ensure that they provide the highest standards of patient care. Every winter, there is media coverage of increased hospital admissions, particularly among the elderly.
Community services are active throughout the year, not just in times of crisis. They are the first bodies to take action by helping and supporting people in their homes, and by helping to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. This in turn keeps beds free for those admitted with an acute illness. The elderly must be among these admissions, and there must be acute, geriatric beds in all our general hospitals. We need to move away from the idea that the elderly are taking up beds which they should not be using. They are equally entitled to acute hospital beds.
All this provision requires resources — an integrated twin-track or dual strategy, which involves proper resourcing of both community and hospital care. This would provide us with the comprehensive health and social service care that people have a right to expect.

Mr Paul Berry: I thank Mr Coulter and Mr McFarland for giving us the opportunity to debate this motion today. It draws to our attention the issue of waiting lists and suggests that bed-blocking is the main factor.
As the entire country knows, our waiting list problem is the worst in the United Kingdom. Sadly, it is a growing problem. According to Health Service figures quoted by Mr Coulter, over 50,000 people in Northern Ireland are on the waiting lists here.
Sadly, there are just two options for patients in our Health Service. They can die or be cared for privately. Our constituents often contact us to complain, not about funding but about the serious problem of the cancellations of their operations. Appropriate funding is important, but the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the departmental Minister must take an overall look at the strategy and structure of the Health Service. At present, Health Service officials are running around like headless chickens. You can pour millions of pounds into the Health Service in Northern Ireland, but the proper structure is not in place to manage the crisis affecting today’s society.
Over the past year, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has issued four press releases in which she announced initiatives to deal with the waiting lists. She issued a statement in January in which she vowed to deal with all these problems, but nothing concrete happened. She repeated herself in June when the figures rose again, and so far her initiatives have failed to accomplish anything. The continuing rise in waiting lists shows that. We see some 600 cardiac patients on a waiting list. We see people lying in hospital for at least two weeks before they get fracture operations. We could go on citing examples. When we see this and nothing is being done in the hospitals about it, we can come to only one conclusion: that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not up to tackling this problem.
Certainly we need an assurance from the Department that appropriate funding is being provided. Another part of the problem is the cancellation of operations. The rate of cancellation is alarming; indeed, there are times when it reaches almost 30%. I can think of one constituent who phoned one of the hospitals in Belfast to see if his operation was set to go ahead the following day only to be told "Sorry, but your operation has been cancelled." He had to make the call himself to find out exactly where he stood. Patients are continually fasting for operations only to be told the next day that their operations have been cancelled. This can occur five or six times before they get their operations.
This is a matter that the Minister needs to look at urgently and, I hesitate to say, review. Until now, all we have been getting from the Health Department the Minister is one review after another. Next, we will find that the review itself is going to be reviewed, and I dread to think what will happen after that. It frightens me to think of the money that is being wasted in the Health Service at present. The acute hospitals review group that has recently been set up is another waste of money. The chairman receives £400 per day when the review group is sitting, and the other members receive £200 per day. Why not go back to the ‘Fit For the Future’ document which included starting points and parts which could have been implemented in full? The Health Department and the Health Minister are wasting a lot of money that could be used for such services as community nursing.
The motion also draws the issue of resources to our attention. This too is a big problem, but there are many instances when resources are wasted. Look, for example, at the thousands of pounds being frittered away on the Republican gravy train in the Minister’s Department. It has spent over £25,000 to date on the Irish language.
In other words, the political agenda matters more than the Health Service. The cost of the Minister’s political agenda would supply the very nurses that the motion calls for, and in the motion she should have been condemned for putting herself before the Health Service. Let me underline that: she puts herself before the health of the community in Northern Ireland.
What sacrifices is her Department making to demonstrate her interest? Where are the announcements that her Department is cutting back to free up these resources for the nation’s health? There are none. What we get instead is ever-growing expenditure on her political agenda. If the people want to know why there are not enough resources to supply the nurses that are needed, they must look to where the money is being spent by the Health Minister: on double advertising, on cross-border trips, and so on. The list goes on, and all around the Minister of Health there is pure wastage.
These are not the actions of a Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety but of someone who has other interests at her heart and at her door. It is important that appropriate funding be provided, but there must also be a proper strategy and proper structures to take forward this health service. At present, it is in dire straits, and action must be taken as soon as possible.
We often overlook the tremendous work done by local GPs and nurses on the ground, who are often stressed out — although we should not be surprised at that. I am sure that everyone in this House would like to commend the tremendous work done by all the local medical staff. We are aware of the dire straits they are in and the difficult times in which they find themselves. Often their hard work and dedication goes unnoticed. As a House, we must commend — and I have no doubt that Members will commend — the staff, community nurses, local GPs and the members of staff, including the medical staff, in the hospitals in Northern Ireland.
As local representatives, we must not only ensure that proper and appropriate funding is supplied for community nursing and other parts of the health service, we must also strive to do our best to lobby and ensure that the proper structures are delivered to the Health Service in Northern Ireland. If this does not happen, things will get worse — perhaps out of hand — in the days ahead.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. While I too welcome the ethos that underpins the motion put forward by two of my Colleagues on the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, part of me believes that it has been poorly thought out.
I agree — and I am sure that those who have yet to speak will concur — that there is a need for community nursing to be properly funded, but nobody should be under any illusion about the current state of the health service. Everyone in this House, in the Health Service and in the community knows that we have a serious problem in the hospitals throughout the year and that it peaks in the winter months when there is much media publicity.
I agree with Rev Robert Coulter when he says that to have 50,000 people on a waiting list is unacceptable and that it should not happen. But to think that these problems can be addressed solely by calling for appropriate funding for community nurses shows a lack of understanding of the causes of the problems. Community nursing certainly has a role to play in tackling the problem, but does the motion refer to health visitors, district nurses or school nursing? The problems in the acute sector are broader than just community nursing; they are about community care and acute care, and a balance between them is needed.
I also welcome the Minister’s recent statement and the budget proposals that she brought forward, in which she pointed out that an additional £274 million was needed. That money will not sort out the Health Service’s problems. It will only make a start, although £274 million will make quite an impact.
The years of underfunding by previous British Ministers needs to be raised, and the Barnett formula that is used to calculate and distribute funding needs to be examined. I do not think that it has worked for many years, and it has had a damaging impact on the health service — an impact which all of us witness every day.
Members pointed out the various problems in their constituencies. The financial allocation is only 54% of the amount that is allocated per head of population in England. That is an overall shortfall of 46%, so where is the equality of opportunity? There are also other areas in the Health Service where we are being short-changed.
I agree with Mr Coulter that the golden handshakes that have been given to chief executives in the Health Service, when viewed alongside the serious underfunding of that service, send out a completely wrong message to people who are on a waiting list for an appointment. They see the chief executive in their trust board area getting loads of money and, at the same time, whistling ‘Dixie’.
That is a serious problem. We must look at where the money is not coming from, and especially at the Barnett formula, because the underfunding is serious, and 46% is not to be sneezed at. It will make a great impact if we achieve even the English per-capita level. People should not merely call on the Minister to provide appropriate funding, for we must tackle the issue on another tier and call on the Department of Finance and Personnel, its Minister and the Executive to argue that additional money be made available. In this way, underfunding in our hospitals and the problems of community nursing can be tackled.
We must also deal with delayed discharges, bed capacity in hospitals and the shortage of additional nursing, which have already been revised. It is very hard to get nursing staff. We must tackle the issue of primary care, and preventative work must take place to ensure that fewer people end up needing acute services. While I welcome the ethos of the motion, the Assembly and those who moved the motion should support the Minister in her fights and arguments for additional money for the Health Service as a whole. None of us agrees with the idea of taking money from one service to prop up another. The entire service must be properly funded. Mr Berry said that the Minister wanted to follow a political agenda. Health should not be a political agenda, for health is the only thing which affects each one of us, whether sitting here or out in the community. Be it underfunding of hospitals or children’s services, a health issue will affect everyone of us in our daily lives. Once again, I wish to say how I welcome the ethos of and the thinking behind the motion.

Mrs Joan Carson: I support the motion before the Assembly today which ask the Minister to ensure appropriate funding for local community nursing. I must agree with what Mr Berry said about our enormous debt to the staff in local hospitals, general practitioners and community nurses. Nothing said here today is intended to be detrimental to them. It is the system under which they are forced to work that we are critical of.
It is simple to call for more funding. From the very beginning of the Assembly, there has been a cry for funding from every Department, and the Minister herself has told us that central funds have underfunded health. The Department of Health, Social Security and Public Safety is a bottomless pit, and money will not put it right. The Health Department has grown. If there was a problem over the years, the remedy was to form a committee. This part of the United Kingdom, with a population of 1,600,000, has a proliferation of boards, trusts and quangos, all with extremely well-paid senior staff doing administrative work that could be done centrally.
We are all too aware of the problems facing health services, and particularly acute services. My area has seen the demise of the South Tyrone Hospital. I use the term "demise" although the closure has been deemed temporary, for who has ever heard of temporary death? This "temporary" closure has placed tremendous pressure on Craigavon Area Hospital. Last year, in the midst of the winter crisis, South Tyrone’s doors had to be opened and the hospital fully utilised, since Craigavon Hospital could not cope with the bed shortage. I have heard that, over the summer, beds have been removed from South Tyrone. We have even been told that they have been sold, although we are not quite sure to whom.
This morning I received a letter from Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust. It is a horror tale of disaster, and I do not know how the people of Northern Ireland, and south Tyrone in particular, are going to cope with it. They catalogued their problems with South Tyrone Hospital. It is going to be utilised again and the beds have gone — they are not even in the building. Will we see patients lying on the floors of South Tyrone hospital, in Third-World conditions?
The Minister announced her acute services review group in August, conveniently during the recess. The review group sounded good. It showed that she was doing something. However, she was only using the method for dealing with problems that has always been used in this particular area of the Health Service — by forming another committee. The remit and the language used in her announcement was woolly. It took me six weeks to elicit a reply to my concerns. I obtained details of the membership and pay of the group from the Minister. It will be £2,000 per day for 50 days — that £100,000 could be better spent on community services.
If our Health Service needs critical appraisal to sort out this bed blockage, why were the chief executives and the administrators, who have all the information and statistics at their fingertips, not brought together to initiate a think-tank to sort out the hospital crisis? They are the people, along with senior civil servants, who have been running the health service during direct rule. We cannot blame British Ministers, and our Minister is only doing what she is told. The responsibility to sort out this mess is being diverted to another quango, wasting even more money in the process. If the Minister wants to do something, why can she not make sure that the administrators are doing their job in the first place?
A Department think-tank could have reported to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee — a body that seems to hear about events or decisions only after they happen. If the proper sequence had been followed, the Committee could have reported the findings from the think-tank to this Assembly. The Civic Forum — another super-quango — could have its first debate on the subject of local community nursing. It would greatly interest elected Members to hear its suggestions.
Last week at Question Time the Minister implied that I was pursuing her for an answer to the different questions I have raised about expenditure because of her political affiliation. That is totally untrue. I was making representations for the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, regardless of race, religion or creed, and urging the Minister to ensure the efficiency and effective running of the Department. I urge the Minister to fund the necessary home care programme to eliminate the pressure of bed blocking in hospitals.
Today’s letter from the Craigavon Area Hospital Group (HSS) Trust says that their ability to meet demand for services is now critical; that the demand on urgent admissions has been unrelenting all year; that GPs cannot get patients into hospital without first sending them to accident and emergency; and that demand for services far outweighs available resources.
The letter also says that, despite all the discussions regarding contingency plans for dealing with winter pressures, which were required by the Minister, the trust is no further now on than they were this time last year. This is an indictment of the Northern Ireland Health Service. It is a total disgrace.
As regards bed blocking, we in Fermanagh and South Tyrone do not have enough beds — the people will be on the hospital floors this winter. It is imperative for the well-being of the people in my constituency — indeed, in Northern Ireland — that this problem be treated with urgency. Somebody has to do something to get this bed blocking sorted out, once and for all.
I support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have been fairly indulgent in allowing some Members to stray from the content of the motion, and I must ask others to bear that in mind.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the motion moved by MrCoulter and MrMcFarland. As Mr Coulter pointed out, there are four boards and 19 trusts for 1·6million people. We are overburdened with bureaucracy. He also mentioned the £1million in golden handshakes given out to certain trusts’ executives, as detailed in a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General last week. I refer Members also to the previous report, in which the Chief Executives of these trusts gave themselves whopping great pay rises, and bonuses on top of that, which were then consolidated into their pay.
The reality is that there are people at the bottom end who are out doing the spadework on a daily basis, while these chief executives get five-figure pay rises— which is more than the former earn in a whole year. The chief executives give themselves a rise and a bonus and consolidate it in so that they get it again the following year. A lot of money is being wasted at present. Non-executive directors receive over £1million in bursaries, or whatever the correct terminology is. How much money does it cost to employ a nurse? Starting off at £12,500, that would pay for 80 nurses for a start. Do we really need this bureaucracy?
MsRamsey mentioned the need for more money in the Health Service. We agree. However, savings could be made with the money that is already there. We need to look now at this issue in a completely new way. We have democracy. We have a locally elected Minister. We have a Health Committee. Do we really need 19trusts and four boards in the future? I believe that we do not and that that money could be much better spent on providing the type of care we are talking about.
I know from my own experience the truth of the part of the motion that says
"and consultants can treat additional patients currently on waiting lists."
It is a sad situation when a person goes to visit a consultant and is told that he will have to wait 10months for an operation. However, if he had £1,800, that same consultant could take him into a National Health hospital and operate the following week. That is totally wrong.
Also, in the community sector, people are going into hospital for gall-bladder operations, for example, and they are out in two days. That places additional strains on GPs, nurses, occupational therapists and physiotherapists who have to come to these people’s homes to care for them. For people who have had strokes, speech therapists are also required. We need to look at how we can provide a better service. There are examples of best practice operating in England.
In the Exeter area there are a number of community hospitals. This may well be a model of best practice where, with the type of innovations suggested earlier, people will be able to have their operations, move to the community hospital closest to their homes and be visited morning and evening by their GPs. A nurse-manager would also look after them. Larne has lost its hospital. We were given all sorts of promises about developments at Antrim Hospital, but these promises have fallen through. We cannot even get public transport to the hospital. We need to bring care back to local communities because people prefer to be near their families. We can get the services we need at community hospitals.
In the City Hospital a fortnight ago, a person who had had a heart bypass the previous day was put onto a chair because the bed was needed. He sat on the chair all day because there was no ambulance available to take him to Antrim Hospital. That is the sort of thing that is happening in the Health Service in Northern Ireland now. Something has to be done about this. I hope the review group that the Minister has set up will address these problems.
While we appreciate the need for extra funding, throwing money at things is not always the answer. It is important to take a complete look at what we are doing and how we are doing it. In future, as the population of this country gets older and life expectancy increases, there will be more elderly people who will continue to need community support. Sometimes it is not just about the money — sometimes they cannot get enough people to provide the services.
I support the motion. I hope we will start to see changes shortly, because the people expect to see them. They expect us to deliver change. We need to set our spending priorities. Earlier it was suggested that you cannot take money from one service to prop up another. Further, we cannot take money away from one Department to prop up another. We need to have a realistic approach to these problems. We need to examine whether the money currently in the Health Service could be better targeted to provide the type of care that people in Northern Ireland need and deserve.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Speaker’s Office has allowed a further hour for debate tomorrow morning. All those people who have put their names down will be given the opportunity to speak. I will be calling people strictly according to party strength.

Mr Sean Neeson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Normally in a debate the Speaker goes round all the parties. Is this a new practice for the Speaker?

Mr Donovan McClelland: There is no new practice. The method has been used since the day the Assembly began.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is news to me also that you have departed from this. I raised this earlier in the debate. It has been the custom for all the different views — particularly for the views of those who consider themselves to be in Opposition — to be represented. The Speaker has used a protocol whereby he goes round each party first, before considering party strength. This is particularly important when four of the parties are represented in the Government.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I assure you that a further hour will be given tomorrow and that all parties will have an opportunity to speak.
If we continue this we will create difficulties for ourselves.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You may not have understood the point. There is not going to be a debate if you continue to call only the parties that are represented on the Executive and leave those parties which consider themselves to be in opposition to the last. By that stage, I imagine, many Members who will already have spoken in the debate will have left, and the differences that we have will not be dealt with.

Mr Donovan McClelland: All the parties present will be given the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

Mr Gardiner Kane: In support of this motion I am compelled to inform the House that without a considerable increase in funding for community nursing and the accompanying care packages, we are risking the danger of triggering what is potentially a disastrous chain of events. Bed blocking is the first consequence of underfunding. I am sure that everyone knows what that is, as it has unfortunately been around for some time. The term refers to non-acute patients who must remain in hospital because there is a lack of resources to care for them at home or to allow them to be placed in private residential or nursing homes. A further demand is often placed on Health Service resources. While in hospital these patients can contract infections, such as Methicillan Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), which increases the demand for scarce medical beds.
The second stage in this chain of events is that the system becomes so overloaded that there is an overspill of medical patients into surgical wards. This not only hampers the delivery of surgical procedures but also increases the risk of the super-bug infection through these medical outliers.
Ultimately, as a result of continued underfunding of community nursing and the accompanying care packages, we may arrive at a point, particularly during peak demand, when the Health Service is so inundated that it fails to deliver. We only have to cast our minds back to the bed crisis at the beginning of the year. By way of illustration, in my health trust area there is an estimated six-month waiting list for placements in nursing homes for non-acute medical patients.
The story is similar for care packages involving community nursing. I call upon the Minister and her Department to increase funding immediately and make community nursing a reality rather than an ideal. I unreservedly support the motion.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat. I support the ethos of the motion. It is important that appropriate funding for community care is available, but let us make sure that it goes to the services most in need to maintain proper health care. Patients in acute hospitals must have an accessible, acceptable, efficient and effective service delivered as close to them as possible. Those services must be convenient, effective and efficient in delivering the fundamental right of access to health and social care. Waiting times should be short for outpatient appointments and for admissions to hospitals. Emergencies should be dealt with immediately, and urgent cases should not have to wait for treatment, with proper nursing care. Patients and their relatives should find it easy to understand how the Health Service works.
At the same time, the service must have sufficient caseloads to establish and maintain the expertise of services and staff. Services should facilitate further staff training, and we should aim to maintain the pool of locally qualified and suitably trained staff who are able to deal with the vast bulk of patients concerns and needs.
We have to ensure that the quality of service is maintained. More routine procedures should be provided locally, which would provide local community nursing for patients in hospitals and in aftercare. In order to maintain the service that is required, appropriate funding needs to be given to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and £274 million should be forthcoming from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support the motion. This afternoon has been interesting in that three of the major parties have said publicly that they would do away with the boards and trusts. That is either a new way forward or hypocrisy, for it is the first time I have heard of that policy. I hope that when the next election comes round those parties will put that policy to the people.
For far too long many of our people have had to suffer totally unnecessarily because past authorities did not, or could not, provide the appropriate funding to carry out the Government policy of care in the community. We heard recently of vast sums being paid out of the health service budget to senior officials in the form of retirement or redundancy payments. There was a public outcry, and rightly so. Rev Robert Coulter has already mentioned that. Perhaps if less money had been paid to those officials, there might have been money available to enable convalescent patients to vacate their hospital beds and return to their homes and community to be looked after and properly nursed back to health. That would have freed hospital beds for new patients. We have all heard about patients having to lie on trolleys for hours on end, and in many cases they cannot be admitted to hospital at all because of the severe lack of beds. There is still a big bed blocking problem. Our hospitals and authorities should be ashamed of themselves because of that intolerable situation.
We must have proper funding, including the resources to recruit and retain professional staff such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, social services staff and many others, so that the Government’s policy of care in the community can be properly carried out. Any new resources must be on a recurring basis.
We are all aware of the disasters in hospitals, surgeries and elsewhere last winter. The Assembly should act now so that there is no repetition of last winter’s fiasco. The health of our community should be the number one priority, and I support the motion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: First, I would like to take up a point raised by Mr Berry, who unfortunately is not now present. He seemed to be incredibly critical of our Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. He attacked her for not having made enormous changes in this area. Despite what I said earlier about parties in opposition, I am with the Minister on this issue. We cannot sit as responsible Members of this Assembly and put the entire blame on our Minister.
I have several reasons for saying this. In 1992 the British Medical Association (BMA) said that community care funding should be ring-fenced and sufficient to allow the most appropriate use of NHS resources. The BMA also said at its meeting in 1992 that it was concerned about the inadequacy of provision for community care for vulnerable groups. It urged the Government to develop protocols to promote co-ordination between the various agencies involved, to provide adequate resources and to monitor the process. In 1995 the BMA again expressed grave concern about the arrangements for the long-term care of patients, the ambiguity surrounding the finance of long-term care, and ageist attitudes towards the provision of healthcare funding for the elderly, encouraged by the competitiveness of the NHS.
At the 1996 meeting the BMA said that the problem of hospital bed blocking by patients awaiting social services assessment needed to be addressed urgently. In 1997 the asociation demanded that there be no premature discharge of long-term institutionalised patients into the community without adequate resources and support, in 1998 it said that it wanted the underfunding of community care services to be urgently addressed by the Government.
The only issue that applies is the BMA’s 1999 statement that the Government should implement rapidly and in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly.
Therefore Mr Berry should look back over the years and check what has happened with regard to underfunding, and he should look at the criticisms voiced and the crises that have occurred in the interaction between acute hospitals and community care.
I will return to the matter of the elderly, but for the moment I will move to another issue. When Mr Coulter put down the motion I am sure that he did not intend our focus to be simply on the elderly; indeed he emphasised that in his opening remarks. The need for more specialist nurses in the area of child and adolescent mental health also needs to be urgently addressed. It is a tragedy that in Northern Ireland there are young people in adult psychiatric wards.
We also need more nurses — midwives in particular. They have to cope with an increasing workload from patients who are discharged earlier and earlier from the maternity beds. We know that there has been a reduction in in-patient maternity beds over recent years, but I do not want to revisit that dispute.
Good-quality innovative practices could be introduced to address some of the issues. One of these innovative practices would be to increase the number of specialist nurses who are empowered to prescribe. A Touche Ross consultancy report shows that this would save £20 million. I assume that this is a UK figure — it would be good to see the figure for Northern Ireland. It would be beneficial if health visitors, and district nurses in particular, were increasingly able to prescribe, and I am glad that we are moving in that direction.
I also note from this report that £7·3 million could be saved from GP time if nurses were able to prescribe. A 24-hour nurse telephone consultation service known as NHS Direct is another proposal from the Royal College of Nursing. The British Medical Association, the district nurses’ and health visitors’ associations and the Royal College of Nursing are all at one on this issue.
The South and East Belfast Trust gives some idea of the direction that we could be moving in. It has a rapid response service which is in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has catered for 2,000 seriously ill local people in their own homes, and it is argued that only 0·1% of them required a planned admission as a result. In other words, 99·9% have been successfully treated at home and have avoided admission to hospital.
I agree with the old slogan that Gardiner Kane mentioned (and it is sad when you think about it) — "The operation was a success; it’s too bad the patient died." This is particularly relevant, given the increased incidence of the hospital-acquired infection MRSA.
From personal experiences reported to me by constituent, I knows how demoralising it can be when people are moved into hospital and out of their familiar environment. If they are in hospital for a long time, it is hard for them to regain their independence when they return home. We should remind ourselves that the elderly have contributed to society and it is our responsibility to give them dignity and the quality of services that they require.
I remain very concerned about the deficits in community care budgets. I know that the Minister has addressed the issue in her current bid. On the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I urged her to earmark funds. Year after year those funds are raided. One in six delayed discharges is due to lack of alternative care arrangements. Let us save the money, rather than make it an increasing economic problem. We need to get the services in the right place. We have also heard today that some of the problem is due to boundary disputes. I remain extremely concerned about the allocation of funding for addressing waiting lists and for community care. I gather from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board minutes for August that the money had still not been allocated at that time.

Mr Roy Beggs: We all know that waiting lists in NorthernIreland are unacceptably long. In my constituency, which is covered by the Northern Health and Social Services Board, it is worse than average. The board area covers 24% of the NorthernIreland population, but it now contains 39% of what the Health Service describes as excess waiters. I should explain that an excess waiter is someone who has been waiting more than 18months for elective surgery. I would also like to highlight the unacceptable fact that 1,190 patients from the Northern Board area have been waiting on these lists for between 12 and 18months for elective surgery, according to the July2000 figures.
In assessing the gravity of the situation, we must bear in mind that these waiting lists are the final stage. First, patients have to queue to see the consultant. Then they have to queue for tests, X-ray, MRI or blood tests. Then they come back to see the consultant, and when they are diagnosed they join the final waiting list. So people in Northern Ireland could be waiting two to three years, or even longer, on waiting lists for urgently needed treatment.
Although everyone supports additional health spending, there is a need to ensure that the money that has been allocated is wisely spent. Members have referred to areas where there is a need for improvement. The motion identifies one area, and I agree that there may be other target areas. The bed blocking referred to in the motion is a result of the lack of a health policy in NorthernIreland. Why does the money not follow the patient? Why is money not automatically available to patients who have finished their acute hospital treatment and are ready for discharge into local community unit nursing care? I do not understand. One of my constituents was pressed for sevenweeks to organise the movement of her husband from an acute hospital in NorthernIreland, although no funding was available from the local health board and she did not have private money to finance it. She felt that she was blocking a bed and that she was at fault. It was not the patient’s fault. The fault was with health policy in NorthernIreland. It is staggering that this happens when we are supposed to have an integrated health and social services system.
Such instances have an impact on the Health Service, the community and, indeed, the individual family involved. In this case a senior citizen was placed in an unnecessary stressful situation. She was also forced to make daily lengthy journeys to visit her husband in the acute hospital in Belfast, rather than much shorter journeys to the local nursing home.
When we consider the effect of this situation, there is also a cost to health management involved. In reply to my letter of 14 August the Health Minister advised me that treatment in an acute hospital such as the Belfast City hospital costs the Department £665 per week, whereas treatment in a nursing home costs £333 per week. On a simple economic basis, money should be following the patient to a more conveniently located nursing home closer to the home and family.
Patients are being faced with unnecessarily lengthy stays in acute beds when nursing care closer to the family is more appropriate to their needs and would cost half the price. It has been estimated that approximately 50% of patients in some wards are awaiting relocation to nursing homes. If that is the case you can begin to appreciate the unnecessary waste of public resources that is leading to this problem.
I wrote to the Health Minister about the number of patients in the Northern Health and Social Services Board area awaiting discharge from acute hospitals. I was advised that in February this year 145 people had been waiting for more than three weeks for such a move. Of that number, 88 had been waiting because of a shortage of community care funding. There is a clear need to address this issue and I will be listening closely to what the Minister has to say.
Patients are being stranded in expensive acute beds and there is need for a policy change. It means that others needing urgent treatment face prolonged waiting periods, and that consultants are not seeing the patients who need their attention. Consultants are inspecting patients who no longer require their expertise and who simply need community care nursing.
As regards waiting lists, I had one constituent who, while waiting for urology treatment, was forced to make 20 visits within a six-month period to the emergency services because of the painful situation that he was in. That was due to a waiting list. Another elderly patient was denied specialist antibiotic treatment for two weeks because no bed was available.
The Minister, in ‘A Framework for Action on Waiting Lists’ is still talking in vague terms. Under the heading ‘Management Action’ the health boards and trusts have to develop waiting list action plans. Come on. The time for developing action plans is past. What have they been doing? What do they do on a weekly and monthly basis? Surely this is something that should have been addressed constantly?
The situation requires firm decision-making and clear direction to ensure that beds and resources are used efficiently and that funding is available for nursing care, which will then enable consultants to treat those on waiting lists.
For too long the focus has been solely on the acute services. The community health care sector clearly interacts with elective surgery and I urgently ask the Minister to address the lack of funding for community nursing as part of the solution to solving the unacceptably long waiting list.
I support the motion.

Dr Joe Hendron: I am very pleased that the Minister is present for this important debate. I wish her well in making her bid within the Executive for proper resources for health and social services for the people of Northern Ireland.
I also want to congratulate Rev Robert Coulter and Mr McFarland for bringing this very important motion before the Assembly. I note the comments made by MrCoulter and other Members on waiting lists. Almost everyone in this Chamber could go on for an hour on that alone. However, I am very conscious about using my medical and public representative hats. We find this right across the board, not just in cardiac surgery but in dermatology and psychiatry. People who require outpatient appointments may not be seen for several months, and even then the appointment may be cancelled or postponed for another couple of months.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report is amazing. I think that many of us were aware to some extent that these things were happening, but we did not know the figures. It is morally wrong that people who leave the Health Service and are given a pay-off can then take up a new job in the health service here or elsewhere.
I look on the community nurse as the very bedrock of the Health Service in Northern Ireland. They are dedicated professionals who are overworked and underpaid. I totally support what most Members, especially the proposer of the motion, have said in this discussion about bed-blocking, waiting lists and community nurses. You cannot talk about community nurses in isolation; MsRamsey and MrBerry made that point very strongly. You must also include the other primary-care professionals. We need a multidisciplinary approach to the delivery of primary care, which would be in the best interests of the public in Northern Ireland. We need a radical change, not only in the resourcing of community nursing, but in the resourcing of primary health care, guaranteed quality parameters and financial accountability.
Reference was made to the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care for the Elderly. Some of us recently met with ProfRobertStout, Professor of Geriatric Medicine at Queen’s University Belfast. While some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly have been carried out, the most important have not. Again, a quality multidisciplinary approach in the care of the elderly would make sense.
We need an integrated primary-care service. I welcome today’s debate — first, because of the importance of the community nurse in the Health Service and, secondly, because of the wider debate on the future of primary care which is now taking place and which will increase in pace over the next few weeks. Reference was made to ‘Fit for the Future’. I appreciate that the Minister started out with a clean slate. She also has the benefit of the massive consultation which took place across this land over a couple of years and led to ‘Fit for the Future – A New Approach’. I mention that in passing. It is very important that the Minister has asked for people and groups, including the Assembly’s Health Committee, to respond to her.
We need an integrated primary-care service with appropriately resourced primary-care teams. The community nurse would play a pivotal role in such a team, and esteem between disciplines would be essential. The aim of health and social services in Northern Ireland should be to enable people who live in the community to receive as much care as possible at home or in their own locality if they so wish. Secondly, specialist services should support these services and provide responsible consultancy advice to patients should they remain at home.
The debate is about waiting lists, discharges from hospitals and community nurses. It is therefore relevant to make reference to the debate that is going on at the moment on Muckamore Abbey. As Members know, there is a move to discharge many of the people there into the community. Friends and parents of patients in Muckamore raised this when I paid a visit there on Thursday of last week, and I know the Minister has recently been there.
The point was made, very strongly, that community care is totally under resourced at the moment. How can friends and relatives be confident that patients in the secondary settlement wards, when they are discharged into the community, will be looked after as well as they were in the hospitals? This being Human Rights Day, I should say that the principle is for people with a learning or physical disability, or who are elderly, to stay in the community. Those who look after them need our total support to do that.
One poor lady who died in July. Much has already been said about that. When people with a fractured neck or femur are hospitalised there is usually an attempt to operate on them within 24 hours so that their general condition does not deteriorate and they do not contract terminal pneumonia or renal failure, as happened to the lady whom I mentioned.
It is so important that people who go into hospital with a fractured neck or femur are not left lying around for several days. Most of them do survive and are eventually operated on, but when they are discharged there is a longer period of convalescence and their quality of life is reduced. Apart from the suffering of the patients and their carers, the community nurse, a pivotal person in the recuperating stage, has her workload increased.
A further point is that community nurses are human beings who are part of a most noble profession. They are not just workhorses expected to carry every load that is thrown at them. We want people discharged early into the community, but it is important to remember that while community nurses are carrying out their work in health centres and so on, they are also running well- woman clinics, well-men clinics, for which I am thankful now, diabetic clinics, immunisation clinics, cessation-of-smoking clinics and drug and alcohol addiction clinics.
In recent times we have had new and very expensive drugs, like Zyban, to help people stop smoking. It is not a question of just writing a prescription and, hallelujah, the person stops the next day. It is an expensive drug and there is a protocol associated with dispensing it which community nurses are involved in. We also have drugs like Orlistat to help with obesity. Community psychiatric nurses are worth their weight in gold, and I want to pay tribute to them as well as to health visitors, midwives and everyone involved in primary care.
Any community nurse in Northern Ireland will tell you, and I know every Member of the House will agree with me, that we really depend upon the work of the carers in Northern Ireland to look after the elderly and the physically handicapped. I mentioned Muckamore before, but there are also many people in the community with learning difficulties, and we pay tribute to those carers who work alongside the community nurses.
Let us resolve to ensure that, along with the Minister, the Department and every Member of the Assembly, in our new integrated and primary-care services, community nurses play a pivotal role with the other members of the primary-care teams.

Rev William McCrea: May I put on record my thanks to both Mr Coulter and Mr McFarland for the motion before the House. It gives us the opportunity to deal with something that goes to the very heart of the community.
Every one of us, at some time or other in the life of someone in his family, will have known what it is to have serious illness in the home.
I listened with care to the opening remarks of Ms Monica McWilliams of the Women’s Coalition about my Colleague Mr Paul Berry. It was interesting to hear how she started her remarks. Just a matter of weeks ago there was the matter of the bug in the water in the Lisburn area, and the swords were out for the Minister who was responsible. He was practically blamed for putting the bug into the water. However, there seems to be a slight difference in how Ministers are handled. Perhaps that is because that Minister happened to be a member of the DUP and the other belonged to IRA/Sinn Féin.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has named me. I can assure him that I was not involved in the debate on that occasion.

Rev William McCrea: That may be a point of information, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is not a point of order. Nevertheless, I am happy to accept the information. However, many of the Member’s Colleagues were very happy to be involved in the debate. Of course, Ministers bear the responsibility of their Department.
This is an important matter to the people of Northern Ireland. The Health Service is in crisis — not just a part of it, but all of it. Rev Robert Coulter talked about trying to imagine the situation and about the stress in the family circle, but unless you have been in that situation you cannot understand the stress that families go through, especially in cases where a loved one needs heart surgery or is suffering from a life-threatening disease and is simply told that his name will be put on a waiting list and is likely to be there for a long time.
The family of one person in my constituency was actually asked if they thought that that person would be around to get much-needed adaptations done to his home. That is the reality of the situation. The family was asked if the person was liable to die before the work was carried out.
There is much talk about care in the community. It sounds ideal, but it is not in reality. Many people feel completely deserted. There is a vital need for nursing care or any other type of care in the community.
The situation is not helped by £1 million golden handshakes, fat-cat syndrome and the increases of thousands of pounds for trust senior officers. This all brings the Health Service into disrepute.
With regards to the £1 million golden handshake, surely a Minister could have intervened in that matter. It is absolutely disgraceful that a person can get a £1 million golden handshake and then go on to get another job in the Health Service. Bearing in mind the great lack of finances available to deal with the Health Service at present, I am sure that nobody here believes that this is an acceptable situation.
Unfortunately, whilst we have been facing this crisis in the Health Service for many years, those at the top of the Department were encouraging an answer to it, namely the closure of hospitals. The people of south Tyrone have been faced with what is described not as a terminal but a temporary closure of their hospitals. I listened to Mrs Carson talking about a temporary death, but I wonder how that fits in.
We have the situation at the Mid-Ulster Hospital and the Whiteabbey Hospital, where, under the new plans, and despite the present crisis, there is nowhere for people to go. These hospitals are filled with people, both throughout the winder and during the summer.
They are filled with people at this very moment. Yet it is planned that these hospitals will close down and other acute services will be done away with. That is also a disgraceful situation, and I trust that the mindset in the Department — for it is a mindset in the Department — will be changed and that there will be a radical rethink of the situation.
In talking about the appropriate funding that is necessary for community nursing, I have to point out that the complexity of this issue goes much deeper than the brief comments contained in the motion. I know that the motion is the catalyst to allow us to deal with many of the issues.
However, the Department has commented recently that services in the Province have been underfunded and that an additional £275 million is needed to rectify existing problems. This statement may be accurate, but, with an increasingly ageing population in Northern Ireland, it is important that measures are put in place to ensure that existing funding, and any additional funding, is used in the most effective way. The old adage when there is a problem is "Throw money at it." That is not the answer. Money could be thrown at the Health Service, and except it were used in the most effective way, it would only bring the service into further disrepute. That should not happen, but we do urgently need money for the Health Service.
In relation to bed blocking, waiting lists and the effective use of consultants’ time, it would be inappropriate not to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the acute hospital budgets and the community nursing budgets are operated independently in most cases across the Province. There is often, therefore, a conflict of interest between acute hospital needs and community care trust needs. Unfortunately, the client often becomes of secondary importance in the equation.
Such budgetary concerns, alas, have caused blockages and prevented the provision of additional services to those currently on the waiting lists. Additional funding to community nursing alone will not solve the fundamental problem in the delivery of quality and effective health care. It is time that the Department tackled the glaring inefficiencies in the man-management of budgets and instructed the health boards to develop strategies that take an overview of the effective delivery of good and efficient services.
Although identifying the weaknesses in the system, everyone today — and I know that this applies right across the House — has applauded the work ethos of the nurses and the social workers in trying to overcome the apparent downfalls of the system. I join with each Member who has congratulated the excellent staff that we have in the service. Let it be abundantly clear that although there is criticism of the Health Service and of management — especially top management, and perhaps overweight management — and administration, no criticism whatsoever is being levelled at those who work in the system, and who are giving an excellent service to the people.
Sadly, I must forecast that the crisis of last winter — which resulted in the abuse of patients seeking admission to hospital, and of those who waited patiently for discharge while attempts were made to put arrangements in place — will undoubtedly happen again this winter unless some urgent measure is taken.
Such abuses must be stopped. I ask the House to ensure that the boards, the trusts and the Department are held accountable for not tackling the fundamental issues which prevent alternatives from being effectively developed in the Health Service.
I support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There remain a small number of Members wishing to speak. The Standing Orders require the interruption of business at 6.00 pm, so I propose to suspend business now. The debate will be resumed at 10.30 tomorrow morning.
The debate stood adjourned.
The sitting was suspended at 5.53 pm.